SAP/ 

1853 

i^^^plj 

.:■-■,-          : 

'■-'■    '  '■        ; 

3s 

Q_ 

J^ 

„ 

.^» 

.ro 

j? 

1c 

3 

* 

■a 

OS 

•*— . 

IE 

, 

^5           ^ 

a. 

• 

W 

•S,       ft 

o 

ta 

$ 

*       S 

CD 

C 

w          O 

bfl 

c\ 

»22            ^ 

< 

:> 

i^      8 

~o5 

* 

£ 

•C^                M 

<<5 

*k» 

•5       rt 

CO 

^ 

"**             Pi 

i> 

»>4 

<£t 

>> 

-Q 

ft 

-a 

c 

s 

£ 

CD 

tod 

So 

^ 

CL 

1" 

xMb 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/replytolectures 


IiJh.-ty  JUgmerJiuehuf  KJiwen-,  MMkrktt  St.Fimh<ryk,Fa 


f  9 

REPLY 

TO 

LECTURES 

ON 

THE  NATUKE,  SUBJECTS,  AND  MODE 

OF 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

BY 

JOHN  T.  PRESSLY,  D.  D. 

BY 

SAMUEL  WILLIAMS. 

SECOND  EDITION. 


CINCINNATI: 

PUBLISHED  BY  MOORE,  ANDERSON  &  CO., 

No.  28   West  Fourth  Street. 

1  853. 


STEREOTYPED    AND    PRINTED 

BY  I.  HART  &  CO., 

41  SECOND  ST.,  CINCINNATI,   OHIO. 


t 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


To  the  members  of  the  First  Baptized  Church  of  Jesus 
Christy  of  Pittsburgh. 

Dear  Brethern  in  the  Lord  : 

Fourteen,  years  ago;  I  was  called  in  the  Providence  of  God,  to 
the  care  of  your  souls.  At  that  time  you  were  few  in  number, 
feeble  in  resources,  and  like  your  brethren  in  the  days  of  Paul, 
"  a  sect  every  where  spoken  against."  Immediately  after  my 
connection  with  you  in  the  pastoral  relation,  I  was  called  upon 
to  maintain  the  cause  of  truth  against  fearful  forms  of  error. 

On  various  occasions,  I  have  opposed  from  the  pulpit,  and  now 
deem  it  my  duty  to  expose  through  the  press,  the  doctrine  of 
Rantismal  Salvation.  A  doctrine,  while  it  mutilates  the  scheme 
of  "  salvation  by  grace,"  utterly  sets  aside  the  authority  of 
Christ  as  Lawgiver  in  Zion,  and  wherever  it  prevails,  entirely 
supercedes  the  ordinance  of  Christian  Baptism.  It  also  de- 
strovs  the  distinction  God  has  made  between  the  church  and  the 
world.  Hence,  in  all  countries  where  the  Romish  church  is  es- 
tablished, and  in  some  Protestant  provinces,  all  children  are 
christened  by  Rantism, — all  of  the  inhabitants  are  members  of 
the  church,  though  they  may  be  infidels  in  sentiment,  and  more 
degradcd  than  heathen  in  morals  ;  and  consequently,  pure  primi- 
tive Christianity,  both  in  spirit  and  form,  is  almost  wholly  un- 
known to  them. 

With  what  ability  and  fidelity  I  have  opposed  those  errora,  I 
leave  you  to  judge.  Of  one  thing  I  am  certain,  that  is,  that  God 
has  unequivocally  given  to  us  the  seal  of  his  approbation,  in  the 
fact,  that  he  has  increased  our  number  from  twenty-seven,  to 
more  than  four  hundred,  notwithstanding  several  churches  have 
been  organized  of  members  dismissed  from  us  for  that  purpose. 

While  we  continue  to  strive  together  for  the  faith  and  practice 
of  the  gospel  in  the  strength  of  the  Lord,  let  us  also  cultivate 
those  graces  which  adorn  the  christian  character — at  once  the 
fruita  of  the  Spirit,  and  a  sure  pledge  of  joys  to  c«me.    E»pe«. 


IV 

cially,  would  I  exhort  you  to  pray  with,  and  for  your  children  * 
And  instruct  them  in  the  knowledge  of  eternal  truth,  at  home  and 
in  the  Sabtmth  School.  Not  from  the  consideration  that  the 
Jews  were  circumcised,  nor  from  that  of  vows  made  at  the  shrine 
of  the  Man  of  Gin,  do  I  thus  exhort  you,  but  from  the  considera- 
tion that  they  are  yours  by  a  Divine  constitution,  and  because 
the  Spirit  has  expressly  commanded  you  to  "Bring  up  your  chil* 
dren  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the.  Lord." 

Let  us  not  suppose  that  we  are  exempted  from  the  obligation 
to  engsge  in  the  conflict  with  surrounding  corruption,  because  we 
have  been  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,  after  the  command  and 
example  of  the  Redeemer,  ift  preference  to  following  the  rudi- 
ments of  this  world,  and  the  traditions  of  men.  No!  so  long  as 
error  is  rife  in  the  land,  so  long  as  the  sophistry  of  the  schools 
is  brought  into  requisition  to  blunt  the  edge  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  while  the  mists  of  Babylon  are  wafted  upon  the  breeze  of 
popularity,  and  being  spread  over  the  fair  face  of  Christianity, 
obscuring  the  glories  of  the  Sun  of  righteousness,  we  must  be 
••valiant  for  the  truth  in  the  earth,"  contending  earnestly,  for 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  for  the  ordinances,  un- 
mutilated  and  unpolluted  by  the  touch  of  man,  as  conveyed  to  us 
through  the  pure  word  of  Divine  testimony. 

For  the  author  of  the  "Lectures"  to  which  I  reply,  I  have  no 
Other  feelings  than  these  of  respect  and  kindness 

No  considerations,  however,  can  justify  the  palliation  of  erroi\ 
nor  apologise  for  lack  of  zeal  or  courage  in  the  maintenance  of 
the  "truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  " 

To  contribute  something  towards  the  victories  which  Christ 
will  achieve  over  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  these  pages  were  pre- 
pared, and  are  now  presented  to  you  in  token  of  my  affectionate 
regard  for  your  welfare,  accompanied  with  my  fervent  prayer, 
that  in  the  cause  of  our  Master  you  may  prove  "faithful  even 
unto  death." 

Respectfully,  your  Pastor, 

SAMUEL  WILLIAMS. 

PiTTBBirR3H,  May  1st.  1841. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION, 


No  alteration  is  made  in  this  edition,  of  the  Reply,  except, 
that  the  typographical  errors  have  been  corrected.  Its  posi- 
tions remaining  impregnable,  and  having  proved  a  valuable 
*id  to  a  number  of  inquirers  after  duty,  it  is  again  issued  from 
the  press,  to  share  in  the  struggle  of  truth  against  error, 
and  gain  additional  victories  through  the  power  of  the  arm 
that  wields  it.  To  Him  it  is  commended,  whose  honor,  as 
Lawgiver  in  Zion,  it  vindicate  and  whose  ordinance  it  aims 
to  restore  to  primitive  purity,  in  firm  faith  that  His  word  shall 
not  return  unto  Him  void,  but  shall  accomplish  His  pleasure, 
and  prosper  in  the  thing  whereunto  He  hath  sent  it. 

SAMUEL  WILLIAMS, 

Pittsburgh,  Feb.  15th,  1853, 


c 


REPLY 


TO 


LECTURES  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


"  In  vain  they  do  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men,"  is  a  caution,  applied  by 
the  Saviour,  to  those  who,  under  religious  pretensions, 
practiced  the  inventions  of  men,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
ordinances  of  God ;  and  thereby  renounced  the  Divine 
government,  and  nullified  the  institutions  of  the  gos- 
pel. To  this  declaration  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the 
greater  part  of  the  connecting  paragraph,  I  shall 
frequently  recur  in  the  course  of  the  following  stric- 
tures. 

I  here  premise,  that  with  almost  the  whole  of  the 
first  lecture  I  most  cordially  agree.  With  mingled 
emotions  of  joy  and  regret,  I  make  the  above  state- 
ment, considering,  as  I  do,  its  connection  with  others, 
which  tarnish  the  beauty  of  its  sentiments ;  and  des- 
troy, as  I  think,  the  sacred  ordinance  that  conveys 
emblematically  the  glorious  truths  therein  enumerated. 
I  rejoice,  that  the  worthy  author  in  his  first  lecture, 
so  skillfully  erects  the  superstructure  of  salvation  on 
the  "sure  foundation"  of  sovereign  mercy  in  Christ 


8 

Jesus ;  but,  I  deeply  regret,  that  in  the  second,  he 
proceeds  to  destroy  that  which  he  began  to  build. 
And  this,  he  does,  it  would  seem,  for  the  purpose  of 
perpetuating  a  custom  that  has  no  authority  in  the  word 
of  God,  and  should  be  numbered  among  the  traditions 
of  men,  which  "  make  void  the  Divine  commands." 
Can  the  perpetuity  of  a  human  device,  make  amends 
for  frittering  away  the  doctrines  of  grace,  which  are 
well  nigh  destroyed  already,  by  the  whittling  archi- 
tects of  mystical  Babylon  ?  Let  every  reader  pause, 
and  reflect  upon  this  question. 

The  text  prefixed  to  Dr.  Pressly's  lecture,  is  the 
apostolic  commission,  as  recorded  by  Matthew.  "  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptising  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost/'chap.  xxviii,19.  According  to  the  remarks 
of  the  Doctor,  page  25,  the  commission  specified  no 
other  subjects  of  baptism  than  believers,  and  yet  he  un- 
dertakes to  show  in  lectures  founded  upon  the  above 
text,  that  infants  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  One 
cannot  resist  the  impression  from  this  fact,  that  either 
the  Doctor  could  find  no  text  for  infant  subjects,  or 
otherwise  as  far  as  subjects  were  concerned  in  his  lec- 
tures, he  preached  from  the  text  instead  of  preaching 
on  it. 

Notwithstanding  he  admits  that  believers  are  the 
only  subjects  specified  in  the  commission,  yet,  he  ar- 
gues that  its  terms  do  not  prohibit  other  subjects.  By 
his  argument,  or  rather  his  sophistry,  his  admission  is 
destroyed ;  just  as  the  requirement  of  the  commission 
is  nullified  by  his  practice.  The  fallacy  of  his  argu- 
ment lies  in  the  assumption  of  that  which  he  does  not 
attempt  to  prove.  He  says,  that  the  inference  drawn 
by  the  Baptists,  from  the  terms  of  the  commission  is 


not  valid,  and  that  such  a  principle  of  reasoning  would 
"  lead  to  consequences  of  the  most  revolting  charac- 
ter." And  then  illustrates  the  charge  by  assuming 
that  faith  is  as  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of  the  in- 
fant, as  to  the  salvation  of  the  adult,  and  that  baptism 
is  as  essentia]  io  the  salvation  of  the  soul  of  the  infant, 
as  eating  is  to  the  life  of  the  body.  He  refers  to  the 
words  of  Paul,  2  Thess.  iii,  10,  for  illustration.  These 
are  "revolting"  assumptions,  and  are  utterly  at  war 
with  truth  and  reason.  The  commission,  only  contem- 
plates those  who  are  capable  of  believing  the  gospel. 

But,  I  cannot  impute  to  the  Doctor  the  sentiment, 
that  faith  is  as  indispensable  to  the  salvation  of  the  in- 
fant, as  to  that  of  the  adult.  I  therefore  suppose  the 
foregoing  assumptions,  were  made  for  the  help  of  a  bad 
case.  He  says,  "  that  common  sense  would  teach  us, 
that  when  our  Lord  speaks  of  believing,  in  connection 
with  being  baptised,  he  has  reference  to  those  who  are 
capable  of  believing."  I  think  so  to.  And  I  further 
think  the  same  instructor  would  teach  us,  that  as  the 
Bible  never  speaks  of  infants  in  connection  with  bap» 
tism,  they  are  not  included  in  the  law  of  baptism,  and 
therefore  can  never  be  brought  out  of  it  by  inferences, 
no  more  than  a  guinea  can  be  drawn  from  an  empty 
purse. 

The  command  to  make  disciples,  baptise  believers, 
and  to  teach  the  baptised,  by  its  positive  terms,  of 
necessity,  excludes  infants.  The  gospel,  is  glad  ti- 
dings of  great  joy.  But,  to  the  unconscious  infant,  it 
is  no  tidings  at  all.  Faith  comes  by  hearing.  And 
he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved.  The  Law  of  Christ 
requires  that  every  believer  should  be  baptised.  But 
it  no  more  requires  the  infant  to  be  baptised  in  order 
to  christian  obedience,  than  it  requires  faith  in  them,  in. 


10 

order  to  their  salvation.  They  are  saved  by  the  re- 
generating and  sanctifying  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
but  not  through  faith  in  the  word  of  God,  or  "belief 
of  the  truth."  Consequently,  baptism  being  enjoined 
only  upon  believers,  it  has  no  application  to  them  what- 
ever. Nor  does  the  perfect  work,  and  complete  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  made  for  the  dying  infant,  need  the 
touch  of  pollution,  to  make  them  more  prevalent  before 
the  Divine  Throne.  Human  devices,  formed,  to  assist 
infinite  wisdom,  and  human  hands  put  forth  to  finish  or 
add  to  the  perfection  of  the  immaculate  Redeemer's 
work,  are  not  only  wholly  gratuitous,  but  awfully  pre- 
sumptuous, especially,  when  performed  in  the  name 
of  the  sacred  Trinity. 

The  author  of  the  lectures  under  review,  often  speaks 
about  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism.  Does  he  mean 
by  this  that  it  is  a  precious  privilege  ?  Or  does  he 
mean  that  it  is  a  solemn  duty  ?  If,  a  favor,  or  privi- 
lege connected  with  salvation,  then  he  exalts  it  to  a 
point  of  importance  equal  to  that  of  faith,  received  in 
regeneration.  Precisely  the  doctrine  of  Augustine  and 
the  Church  of  Rome — baptismal  regeneration.  If  a 
duty,  then  it  presupposes  a  law  prescribing  that  duty  ; 
and  it  implies,  the  exercise  of  the  understanding,  will 
and  consciousness  of  the  subject.     But  we  have  seen, 

and  Dr.  P admits,  that  the  only  law  of  baptism 

God  ever  gave  to  man,  does  not  include  infants  ;  and 
when  Peter  defines  baptism  as  far  as  the  subject  is 
concerned,  he  says  "it  is  not  the  washing  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,  by  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead."  Is  the  "right  of  infants  to 
baptism,"  a  favor  or  privilege  that  connects  all  who 
are  compelled  to  be  baptised,  with  the  blood  of  the 


11 

atonement,  as  faith  does  in  the  case  of  the  adult  ? 
Then  here  is  salvation  by  works,  and  not  of  grace,  for 
none  were  ever  put  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  but 
those  who  are  called,  and  remain  in  that  spiritual  re- 
lation to  God.  The  Doctor's  doctrines  are  at  war  with 
his  practice.  His  doctrines  suspend  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  upon  the  purpose  of  sovereign  grace  in  Christ 
Jesus,  to  whom  it  is  united  in  an  everlasting  bond  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  Heb.  viii,  9  — 12.  But  his  practice 
seems  to  say  that  the  soul  cannot  be  in  the  covenant ; 
its  interest  not  sealed  there,  until  a  human  device  be 
brought  into  requisition  for  that  purpose.  Baptism  is 
nowhere  in  the  Bible  called  a  seal  of  the  covenant  ; 
nor  the  minister  of  the  gospel,  the  agent  to  confirm  our 
interest  in  the  redemption  of  Christ.  Psedobaptist 
ministers  so  call  it ;  but  Paul,  guided  by  the  unerring 
Spirit,  says,  that  we  are  "  sealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  promise,"  Eph.  i,  13:  iv,  30. 

Baptism,  therefore,  is  not  a  privilege  to  those  to 
whom  it  is  not  a  duty  ;  and  we  have  seen,  that  it  is 
not  a  duty  to  those  who  cannot  comprehend  its  obliga- 
tion, or  conscientiously  discharge  it.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, irresistibly,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  those,  and  only 
those,  who  believe — who  are  already  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation, to  be  baptised.  To  such  it  is  a  privilege  to  be 
"buried  with  Christ  by  Baptism;"  and  thus,  testify 
their  love  to  the  Saviour  who  died  and  rose  again  for 
them,  by  obeying  His  Commandment.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  Doctor  admits,  (p.  25, )  that  the  commission,  or 
law  of  baptism  does  "  not  afford  any  evidence  of  the 
right  of  infant  baptism  ;"  yet,  he  says,  that  it  furnishes 
no  argument  against  it.  It  is  true,  that  it  does  not,  in 
in  so  many  words,  prohibit  infant  baptism.  That  is,  it  is 
silent  on  the  subject.     He  says,  they  are  not  included 


12 

in  it.  And  yet,  he  thinks  there  is  an  "  impassible  gulf 
between "  the  premise  and  the  conclusion.  This  is 
passing  strange.  To  say  as  little  as  possible  about  the 
assumptions  of  the  Doctor  in  order  to  make  this  "  im- 
passible gulf,"  I  only  reply  that  such  logic  would  make 
sad  work,  if  applied  in  the  interpretation  of  the  princi- 
ples of  Divine  government.  For  example,  the  Saviour 
commands  his  disciples  to  partake  of  the  emblems  of 
his  death.  We  infer  from  the  terms  of  the  command, 
that  infants  are  not  proper  subjects  of  that  ordinance, 
for  the  simple  reason,  that  they  are  not  discipled,  or 
believers.  But,  according  to  the  Doctor's  logic,  there 
is  an  impassible  gulf  between  the  premise  and  the  con- 
clusion. Will  he  apply  his  assumption  here,  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the 
soul  of  the  infant,  as  eating  is  to  the  life  of  the  body  ? 
Surely  it  is  as  appropriate  here  as  anywhere.  In  this 
case  the  Doctor  is  on  one  side  of  the  "  impassible 
gulf,"  and  his  children  on  the  other,  for  he  does  not 
admit  them  to  the  communion,  though  all  baptised 
persons  of  good  morals,  in  primitive  times,  were  eligi- 
ble to  that  ordinance. 

The  Baptists  have  their  children  with  them,  trusting 
in  Christ  for  their  salvation,  and  see  no  frightful  gulf 
between  the  premise  and  conclusion  in  neither  case, 
The  command  specifies  believers  as  the  proper  sub- 
jects, and,  therefore,  all  others  are  prohibited  from  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  For  them  it  was  instituted. 
They  alone  can  discern  its  doctrinal  import,  and  ap- 
prehend the  spiritual  blessings,  of  which  it  is  the  ap. 
pointed  emblem.  They  attend  to  it  as  a  privilege,  be- 
cause, they  know  it  to  be  their  duty  ;  and,  when  they 
perform  it,  having  "answered  a  good  conscience  to- 
ward God,"  go  on  their  way  rejoicing. 


13 

The  invariable  practice  of  the  apostles,  affords  a  good 
comment  upon  the  correctness  of  our  conclusion,  drawn 
from  the  terms  of  the  commission.  To  suppose  that 
they  did  not  understand  the  nature  and  extent  of  their 
duty  contained  in  the  commandment,  or  that  they  wil* 
fully  disregarded  its  requirements  were  highly  absurd, 
Their  administration  of  the  ordinance,  therefore,  must 
be  in  exact  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  law  pre- 
scribing their  duty.  Accordingly,  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost,  "They  that  gladly  received  the  word,  were 
baptised,"  Acts  ii,  41.  The  people  in  Samaria,  "gave 
heed  to  the  things  which  Philip  spake,"  had  great  joy, 
and  "were  baptised  both  men  and  women."  Oh! 
what  an  excellent  place  here  would  have  been  to  have 
added  children.  Luke  could  not  make  the  addition, 
however,  for  he  was  under  the  direction  of  the  spirit 
of  truth,  and,  therefore,  would  not  misrepresent  the 
apostles.  It  was  reserved  for  the  monks  of  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries  to  tack  on  to  Christianity  these  in» 
ventions  of  men,  that  now  make  "  void  the  command" 
ment  of  God."  See  Acts  yiii,  12.  Philip,  acting  un- 
der the  direction  of  the  "  Head  of  the  church,"  did  not 
dare  to  baptise  the  Eunuch,  until  he  made  a  credible 
profession  of  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  complied  with 
the  rule  of  his  duty.  "  If  thou  believest  thou  mayest." 
Thus  he  honors  the  Lawgiver  of  Zion,  by  conforming 
to  his  holy  will,  remembering  the  declaration  of  his 
Judge  :  "  By  my  word  shall  ye  be  judged  in  the  last 
day,"  Acts  viii,  37. 

Cornelius  and  his  friends,  the  first  Gentiles,  believed 
the  gospel,  "spake  with  tongues,  and  magnified  God," 
before  they  were  baptised,  Acts  x,  46.  Lydia,  the 
merchant,  and  her  household  of  clerks  were  believers 
in  the  Saviour,  before  they  were   baptised,  for  Paul 


14 

and  Silas  visited  them  afterward,  and  "  comforted  the 
brethren  "  with  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  Acts  xvi, 
40.  The  jailor  and  his  household  "  rejoiced,  believing 
in  God,"  Acts  xvi,  34.  Many  of  the  Corinthians, 
"  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptised,"  and  Crispus 
" believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house,"  Acts  xviii, 
4.  Stephanas,  and  his  house  were  the  first  baptised 
in  Corinth,  who  "  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry 
of  the  saints,"  1  Cor.  xvi,  15.  Thus,  invariably,  did 
the  apostles  baptise  those,  and  only  those,  who  exer- 
cised faith  in  Christ,  in  obedience  to  their  ascended 
Lord.  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised."  They  did 
not  presume  to  reverse  the  order  of  the  Divine  law,  in 
order  to  violate  its  Holy  requisitions.  In  all  congre- 
gations and  communities  of  Peedobaptist  believers, 
baptism  is  superseded  by  a  violation  of  the  law,  speci- 
fying the  requisite  qualifications  in  the  subject  and 
guiding  the  administration  of  the  ordinance.  For  if 
they  baptise  or  rantise  the  child  (as  the  case  may  be) 
then  they  do  not  baptise  him,  though  he  afterward  be- 
lieve. We  may  safely  take  our  stand  upon  the  ground, 
that  the  requirement  of  the  law  of  baptism,  implies  the 
exclusion  of  those  who  do  not  possess  the  necessary 
qualification  for  the  ordinance,  as  necessarily  as  the 
prohibition  of  any  sin,  implies  the  requirement  of  a 
corresponding  duty  ;  and  that  the  apostles,  guided 
and  controlled,  by  the  unerring  spirit,  always  required 
evidence  of  faith  in  the  candidates  before  baptising 
them  ;  and  then  defy  the  world  to  move  us  from  our 
position.  Mere  assumption  will  never  seperate  just 
conclusions  from  sound  premises.  Faith,  in  a  preached 
gospel,  incomprehensible,  of  course,  to  an  infant  as  es- 
sential to  its  salvation,  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  adult ! 
Baptism,  as  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  soul  of 


15 

the  infant,  as  eating  is  to  the  preservation  of  the  body! 
What  doctrines  these  are  !  Doctrines  of  Popery  ;  only 
assumed  by  Protestants,  for  the  purpose  of  upholding 
the  strongest  pillar  of  that  execrable  system  !  Verily, 
this  popgun  of  sophistry,  must  lay  very  near  the  door 
of  Peter  Edward's  Magazine,  or  so  many  Psedobaptist 
disputants  would  not  come  out  to  the  field  with  the  same 
poor  weapon.  Every  intelligent  and  affectionate  disci- 
ple of  our  Lord,  will  feel  himself  as  secure  against  such 
weapons,  while  standing  upon  the  above  proposition, 
supported  as  it  is  by  the  whole  history  of  apostolic 
practice,  as  Sampson  did  against  the  cords  of  the  Phil- 
istines, when  clothed  with  the  power  of  the  Omnipo- 
tent, and  standing  in  the  top  of  the  rock  Etam. 

The  first  argument  the  Doctor  offers,  after  attempting 
to  sophisticate  away  the  terms  and  exclusive  claims  of 
the  commission,  is  from  the  supposed  identity  of  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  church.  To  every  intelligent 
mind,  the  notion,  that  a  New  Testament  ordinance  is 
to  be  learned  from  the  Old  Testament  writings,  must 
seem,  to  say  the  least,  very  singular.  It  is  just  like 
going  to  the  commission  for  infant  subjects.  It  is  sin- 
gular, because,  the  ordinance  is  not  there  !  It  had  no 
being  until  a  ''man  was  sent  from  God,  whose  name 
was  John,"  to  commence  it,  in  "  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,"  Mark  i,  1 — 4.  It  is  going 
to  the  Jewish  dispensation  to  ascertain  a  duty  connected 
with  the  Christian  dispensation.  And  we  greatly  doubt 
whether  an  instructor  of  Theology  would  stake  his 
reputation  upon  the  issue  of  any  other  question,  with 
no  better  arguments  for  its  support  than  those  drawn 
from  a  source  that  is  silent  on  the  subject.  Dr.  Mason, 
in  an  argument  for  a  mixed  church,  said,  that  "it  con- 
tributed directly  to'  her  prosperity,  by  extending  her 


16 

resources,  and  by  increasing  her  numbers.     Her  re- 
sources are  increased  by  pecuniary  aid,  and  the  aid  of 
talents.' '      This  is  a  weighty  argument,  for  money  is 
almost  always  more  influential  than  the  truth.     And 
Dr.  Mason  may  have  been  honest  in  using  it.     Still,  it 
was  founded  on  policy,  and  not  on  fact.     It  can  never 
be  shown  that  the  Jewish  nation  and  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ  are  the  same.     That  the  Jews  were  under  the 
government  of  God  and  many  of  them  pious,  I  do  not 
deny,  but  I  do  deny  that  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish 
theocracy  and  that  of  the   Christian  church  are  one. 
The  very  first  argument  adduced  by  the  Doctor  de- 
stroys itself.     For  if  children  of  believers  were  consti- 
tuted members  because  they  were  members,  then  cir- 
cumcision did  not  make  them  members,  for  the  Doctor 
contends  that  the  children  are  not  members  until  bap- 
tised ;  but  if  baptism,  the   initiating  ordinance  of  the 
Christian  Church,  comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision, 
then  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  not  the 
same;  for,  as  we  have  seen  the  children  were  members 
of  that  church  by  birth,  not  by  circumcision.     Another 
discrepancy  in  his  argument  is,  that  he  does  not  include 
servants  with  children,  for  they  were  equally  eligible  to 
the  precious  "privilege,"  (according  to  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,)  which  made  Zipporah  say  to  Moses 
when  she  circumcised  her  son,   "  a  bloody  husband  art 
thou  to  me,  a  bloody  husband  because  of  the  circum- 
cision," Ex.  iv,  27.     So  that  instead  of  lamenting  an 
abridgement  of  privileges  under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
servants,  children,  and  parents,  all,  may  well  rejoice 
that  the  old  burden  of  bloody  circumcision  is  not  im- 
posed upon  us — Gentiles.     Priests  were  not  required 
to  administer  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  ;  and,  there- 
fore, unless  they  be  parents,  they  need  not  be  con- 


17 

cerned.  In  case  a  Priest  cannot  be  obtained  in  the 
Romish  church  to  administer  the  substitute,  and  the 
child  should  be  in  imminent  danger  of  death,  the 
parent  or  neighbor  may  perform  the  sealing  operation. 

The  chief  privilege  they  enjoyed,  we,  without  dis- 
tinction, enjoy.  Unto  us,  as  well  as  unto  them,  is  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God  ;  so  that  our  children  may 
be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,  and  become  children  of  Abraham  by  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  the  promised  Seed,  in  whom  all  the  pro- 
mises are  yea  and  amen. 

The  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  recorded  Gen, 
1 7,  is  the  one  from  which  our  Pasdobaptist  brethren 
get  their  principal  argument.  It  includes  two  things, 
a  promise  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and 
one  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan.  Although  Canaan 
was  to  be  an  everlasting  possession,  and  circumcision 
was  to  be  in  their  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  yet 
our  brethren,  who  claim  the  blessings  of  this  covenant 
on  account  of  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches,  do  not  lay  claim  to  their  inheritance  in  Ca- 
naan, nor  do  they  attend  to  the  everlasting  mark  which 
every  child  of  the  covenant  was  to  have  made  in  his 
flesh.  We  are  Gentiles,  I  seem  to  hear  some  one  say, 
and  not  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham.  If,  then,  the 
spiritual  seed,  only,  are  interested,  Paul  explains  it  in 
a  few  words — "  If  ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  In 
neither  case  can  unbelieving  children  of  Gentiles  obtain 
a  place—- neither  in  the  land  of  Canaan  nor  in  the 
church,  Nor  can  they  from  the  terms  of  the  covenant 
be  either  circumcised  or  baptised. 

The  great  mistake  with  many  seems  to  be,  that  they 
suppose  they  bear  the  same  relation  to  Abraham  that 


18 

the  Jews,  his  natural  descendants  do ;  and,  therefore, 
they  are  entitled  to  the  same  promise  and  privileges 
with  them.  When  it  comes  to  the  seal,  or  token,  then 
they  tell  us  it  is  changed.  But,  never  do  they  point  to 
the  passage  in  the  Bible  to  prove  it.  No  !  the  proof 
of  this  is  to  be  found  in  naked  assertion,  catechisms, 
treatises,  and  traditions  received  from  the  councils  of 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  the  faithful,  not  as  a 
natural  ancestor,  but  as  an  eminent  model  of  faith  in 
God.  Much  in  the  same  sense  that  Tubal-Cain  is  the 
father  of  all  artificers  in  brass  or  iron.  And  as  it  re- 
gards the  sign  of  circumcision,  it  is  not  a  seal,  nor  ever 
has  been,  to  any  other  than  Abraham  himself.  To  him 
it  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  which  he  had  long  be- 
fore it  was  imprinted  upon  him,  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  designating  him  as  the  father,  or  example,  of 
all  them  that  believe,  without  respect  to  natural  gene- 
ration, and  also  without  respect  to  circumcision  or 
uncircumcision,  Rom.  iv,  11,  13,  Gal.  iii,  29. 

The  Jews,  the  natural  seed,  were  not  permitted  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  Christ  without  repentance  and 
faith.  The  Pharisees  urged  the  plea  that  Abraham 
was  their  father,  but  John  insisted  on  it,  that  proxy 
faith  would  not  answer  in  the  spiritual,  discriminating 
kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  "  Every  tree  that  bringeth 
not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the 
fire,"  Matt,  iii,  10.  Whether  they  thought  the  Jewish 
nation  was  the  same  with  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
that  because  they  were  the  descendants  of  Abraham, 
they  had  an  un  loubted  right  to  the  blessings  of  the 
.   Christ,  it  does  not  It  would 

seem,  from  this  and  other  passages,  that  they  had 
much  the  same  views  with  our  Peedobaptist  brethren, 


19 

with  this  addition,  they  thought  that  as  the  Gentile 
converts,  pretended  to  be  the  children  of  Abraham, 
they  ought  to  be  circumcised,  as  that  was  the  law  and 
token  of  that  everlasting  convenant !  They  urged  this 
matter  so  far  that  the  apostles  were  obliged  to  meet 
in  consultation  upon  the  subject  at  Jerusalem.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  at  the  council  called  to  delib- 
erate on  the  subject  of  circumcision,  instead  of  the 
apostles  urging  in  behalf  of  the  Gentiles,  that  they 
had  in  baptism  attended  to  the  law  of  the  covenant, 
they  never  speak  of  baptism  at  all,  nor  do  they  yield 
to  the  clamors  of  the  Jews  about  the  obligations  of  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  the  uncircumcision  of 
the  Gentiles,  etc.  And  not  a  single  word  do  they  say 
about  baptism  coming  in  the  room  of  circumcision. 
On  the  supposition  that  this  was  the  case,  their  silence 
is  unaccountable,  Acts,  xv,  1 — 22. 

Abraham  is  called  by  Paul  a  good  olive  tree,  be- 
cause he  received  along  with  promises  of  temporal 
blessings  for  the  Jewish  nation  en  masse,  promises  of 
spiritual  blessings  for  all  believers  in  Christ,  the  seed 
of  promise,  Rom.  xi,  13 — 34,  Gal.  iii,  16.  See  Dr. 
McKnight,  in  Loco. 

This  is  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  that  dis- 
pensation. It  was  typical.  The  gospel  was  preached 
through  the  types  to  Abraham.  All  of  the  temporal 
blessings  of  the  Jews  were  typical  of  the  spiritual 
blessings  which  believers  now  enjoy.  And  hence  the 
complex  character  of  some  of  the  promises.  Their 
primary  application  was  to  the  natural  seed,  and  re- 
lated to  their  temporal  privileges.  Their  secondary 
application  is  to  all  the  spiritual  seed  of  Christ,  the 
children  of  Abraham  by  faith,  and  relate  to  their  spir- 
itual blessings,  of  which  the  temple  with  all  its  ceremo- 


/ 


20 

nies,  circumcision,  etc.,  etc.,  are  all  typical.  Circum- 
cison  was  a  type  of  the  new  birth,  not  of  baptism. 
The  Paschal  lamb  was  typical  of  the  atonement  of 
Christ,  not  of  the  Lord's  supper.  The  connection  of 
the  Jews  with  natural  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  under  the  figure  of  the  olive  tree  and 
branches,  was  typical  of  the  connection  between  believ- 
ers in  Christ  with  faithful  Abraham.  The  Jews  were 
broken  off  by  unbelief,  and  the  believing  Gentiles  and 
Jews  are  grafted  in  by  faith,  or  regeneration,  of  which 
circumcision  was  the  type,  Gal.  v,  1 — 6. 

The  Jewish  kingdom  or  church  was  by  no  means  the 
same  with  the  kingdom  or  Church  of  Christ.  Daniel 
prophesied  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  should  be 
set  up  in  the  days  of  the  Caesars,  unlike  all  others 
which  preceded  it,  spiritual  in  its  nature,  and  eternal 
in  its  duration,  Dan.  ii,  44.  Into  which  none  were 
admitted  without  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  and  faith 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Matt.  3,  Acts  2.  The  Jews 
were  enraged  at  the  Saviour  because  he  did  not  con- 
sent to  their  views  of  the  Nation,  and  deliver  them 
from  the  Roman  yoke,  and  at  last  crucified  him.  His 
kingdom  and  theirs,  the  same  !  From  the  haughty  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  the  circumcised  subjects  of  the 
Jewish  kingdom,  He  turned  away  in  disgust,  after 
having  told  them  that  they  were  of  their  father  the 
Devil,  and  said  to  his  little  band  of  disciples,  "  Fear 
not,  little  flock,  it  is  your  father's  good  pleasure  to  give 
you  the  kingdom."  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them 
gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to 
to  them  that  believe  on  his  name ;  which  were  born,  not 
of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will 
of  man,  but  of  God,"  John  i,  12,  13. 

The  reader  may  clearly  see  the  difference  between 


21 


the  covenant  of  circumcision  and  the  covenant  of 
grace.  They  were  both  included  in  the  piomise  made 
to  Abraham  in  the  covenant  recorded  in  Gen.  17,  and 
are  spoken  of  by  Paul  in  Gal.  *,  and  Heb.  8th  and  9th 
chapters.     Here  is  the  contrast. 

ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT. 


OLD    COVENANT. 

I.  The  old  covenant  was 
only  a  temporal  relation  betwixt 
God  and  a  particular  nation, 
which  is  now  done  away  and 
come  to  an  end,  Heb.  viii,  13. 

II.  The  old  covenant  was 
carnal  and  earthly  : 

1.  In  its  worship,  which  stood 
only  in  meats  and  drink  and 
divers  washing,  and  carnal  or- 
dinances, Heb.  ix,  10. 

2.  In  its  sacrifices  of  bulls 
and  goats,  which  could  never 
take  away  sin,  or  purge  the 
conscience,  Heb.  ix,  9,  and 
x,4. 

3.  In  its  mediator,  viz.,  Mo- 
ses, Gal.  iii,  19. 

4.  In  its  priests,  viz.,  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  who  were  sinful 
men,  and  not  suffered  to  con- 
tinue by  reason  of  death,  Heb. 
vii,  23—28. 

5.  In  its  sanctuary,  which 
was  worldly  and  made  with 
hands,  Heb.  ix,  1—24. 


6.  In  its  promises,  they  be- 


NEW    COVENANT. 

I.  The  new  covenant  is  an 
eternal  relation  betwixt  God 
and  his  people  from  among  all 
nations,  and  is  therefore  call- 
ed an  everlasting  covenant,  Heb. 
xiii,  20. 

II.  The  new  covenant  is 
spiritual  and  heavenly  : 

1.  In  its  worship,  which  re- 
quires a  true  heart,  faith,  and 
a  good  conscience,  and  to  be 
performed  in  spirit  and  truth, 
Heb.  x,  19—23,  John  iv,  23. 

2.  In  its  sacrifice,  which  is 
Christ,  and  which  perfects  for- 
ever them  that  are  sanctified, 
Heb.  x,  14. 

3.  In  its  mediator,  viz., 
Christ  Jesus,  Heb.  xii,  24. 

4.  In  its  priest  viz.,  Christ 
who  is  holy,  harmless,  etc., 
and  abideth  priest  continually, 
ever  living  to  make  interces- 
sion for  us,  Heb.  vii,  24 — 26. 

5.  In  its  sanctuary,  which 
is  heaven  itself  whereinto  our 
great  High  Priest  hath  entered, 
having  obtained  an  eternal  re- 
demption for  us,  Heb.  ix  12. 

6.  In  its  promises,  they  being 


22 


ing  worldly  blessings  in  earth- 
ly places, and  respecting  only  a 
prosperous  life  in  the  earthly 
Canaan,  Deut.  xxviii,  1 — 15, 
Isa.  i,  19,  Josh,  xxi,  43 — 45, 
and  xxiii,  14 — 16. 

7.  In  its  subjects,  or  people 
covenanted,  they  being  the 
fleshly  seed  of  Abraham,  chil- 
dre  i  of  the  temporal  promise, 
related  to  God  as  his  typical 
people,  and  to  Christ  as  his 
kinsman  according  to  the 
flesh  ;  which  typical  and 
fleshly  relation  availed  them 
much  for  the  enjoyment  of  the 
typical  and  earthly  priviliges 
of  this  covenant,  but  as  Hagar, 
the  bond-woman,  was  cast  out 
with  her  son  born  after  the 
flesh,  so  the  covenant  itself 
being  antiquated,  its  temporal, 
typical  privileges  vanished, 
its  subjects  castout.and  disin- 
berited,  the  fleshly  relation 
upon  which  they  received  cir- 
cumcision, availed  nothing  for 
their  partaking  of  spiritual 
privileges,  nor  were  they,  as 
children  of  this  covenant,  ad- 
mitted beirs  with  the  children 
of  the  free  woman,  or  new 
covenant,  Rom.  ix,  4 — 9  Gal. 
vi,  15,  and  iv,  22,  23. 

Will  our  Paedobaptist  breth- 
eren  in  despite  of  the  declara- 
tions of  immutable  truth,  and 
all  our  entreaties  persist  in 
claiming  relationship  to  Abra- 
ham through  Hagar,  and  te- 
naciously cling  to  the  old  cov- 
enant ? 


spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly 
places,  and  chiefly  respecting 
*he  life  to  come,  and  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  heavenly  inherit- 
ence,  Eph.  i,  3,  Tit.  i,  2,  Heb. 
viii,  6,  and  xi,  16. 

7.  In  its  subjects  ;  they  being 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham, 
typified  by  the  fleshly  seed; 
being  chosen  in  Christ  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  ; 
predestinated  unto  the  adop- 
tion of  children,  and  redeemed 
by  the  blood  of  Christ.  These 
are  the  children  of  the  promise, 
who,  in  God's  appointed  time, 
are  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  : 
being  born  again,  not  of  cor- 
ruptible seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, even  by  the  word  of 
God,  which  liveth  and  abideth 
forever  ;  who  have  the  law  of 
God  written  in  their  hearts, 
and  all  know  him  from  the 
least  to  the  greatest.  Through 
this  work  of  the  Spirit,  they 
believe  in  the  name  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  by  1  he  profes- 
sion of  this  their  faith,  they  ap- 
peared to  be  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, children  of  the  free  wo- 
man, and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise,  to  whom  belong 
all  spiritual  privileges,  and 
baptism  among  the  rest  Eph.  i, 
4,  5;  1st  Peter  i,  18,  19;  John 
i,  13;  2 st  Peter  1— 23;  Heb. 
viii,  10,  11 ;  Gal.  iii,  26—29; 
and  iv,  23—31  ;  Acts  ii,  41, 
42. 


23 

From  the  above  contrast  it  appears  that  the  old  cove- 
nant, together  with  the  things  appertaining  to  it,  were 
only  earthly  patterns  of  things  in  the  heavens,  Heb.  ix, 
23 — figures  for  that  time,  verse  2 — shadows  of  good 
things  to  come,  Heb.  x,  1,  imposed  upon  typical  Israel 
until  the  time  of  reformation,  chap,  x,  10,  under  which 
they  were  shut  up  to  the  faith  that  should  afterwards 
be  revealed,  Gal.  iii,  23.  So  that  aside  from  their 
typical  reference,  there  was  nothing  spiritual  or  heav- 
enly in  them.  And  as  this  covenant  was  typical  and 
earthly,  so  were  the  covenanted  people.  In  order  to 
enjoy  its  privileges  it  was  not  necessary  for  them  to  be 
regenerated  or  believe  in  Christ.  If  they  were  the 
fleshly  seed,  and  were  circumcised,  they  were  mem- 
bers in  good  standing  in  that  typical  church,  or  nation, 
though  they  should  be  worshippers  of  idols,  as  many 
of  them  were. 

Though  some  of  the  fleshly  Israel  were  of  the  spir- 
itual Israel,  they  were  not  so  by  their  fleshly  relation 
to  Abraham,  nor  by  the  temporal  promise  concerning 
his  natural  seed,  to  which  circumcision  belonged  ;  but 
by  faith,  through  grace,  in  the  notable  Seed,  the  Me- 
diator of  the  new  covenant,  of  which  their  fleshly  re- 
lation and  temporal  covenant  were  but  types,  or  were 
earthly  patterns,  Rom.  xi,  5 — 7;  Heb.  xi,  13 — 39,  40. 

Unless  we  keep  the  distinction  clearly  drawn,  while 
running  the  parallel  between  Abraham's  two-fold  seed, 
we  shall  confound  those  born  of  the  flesh  with  those 
born  of  the  Spirit.  Whether  our  Peedobaptist  brethren 
mistake  this  matter  altogether,  or  whether  they  multi- 
ply words  to  confound  this  doctrine,  we  cannot  say. 
It  is  very  certain,  that  type  and  antitype  hold  the  same 
proportion  with  flesh  and  spirit,  shadow  and  substance, 
earth  and  heaven;  and,  therefore,  the  distinction  be- 


24 

tween  the  two-fold  seed,  must  be  observed.     Now,  the 
whole  argument  of  the  Doctor  runs  upon  the  supposi- 
tion, that  the  fleshly  seed  of  New  Testament  believers 
are  as  really  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  as  the  in- 
fants of  old  Israel  were  his  fleshly  seed.     This  is  an 
absurd  supposition  !     A  premise  without  a  shadow  of 
proof !    A  mere  assumption  on  which  men  have  builded 
a  Jewish  Gentile  church  state  ;  such  as  infidel  France 
— superstitous  Italy — bloody  Spain,  etc.,  wherever,  in 
short,  the  barrier  that  Christ  set  up  between  his  church 
and  the  world,  has  been  broken  down,  by  the  influence 
of  this  doctrine.     Hence,  the  confusion  manifest  in  the 
reasoning  of  the  advocates  of  this  system.     Sometimes 
they  argue  that  children  of  believers   should   be  bap- 
tised, because  they  are  the  children  of  believers,  and, 
therefore,  members  of  the  church  ;  then,  perhaps,  in 
the  next  paragraph,  they  contend  that  they  should  be 
baptised  to  initiate  them  into  the  church.     So  that  one 
destroys  the  other.     For,  if  members  by  birth,  then 
baptism  does  not  initiate  them  into  the  church.     If  they 
become  so  by  baptism,  then  they  are  not  such  by  birth. 
These  phrases  are  used  alternately  by  the  Doctor  with 
great  frequency,  as  though  he  supposed  his  hearers 
and  readers  would  accept  of  them  as  synonymous  in 
logic,  well  established  premises,  or   correctly  drawn 
conclusions,  notwithstanding  they  devour  each  other, 
in  toto.     If  the  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham  typified  the 
fleshly  seed  of  the  believing  Gentiles,  then,  the  spiri- 
tual seed — the  true  antitype,  are  superseded  by  the 
fleshly  seed  of  the  Gentiles — -or  in  other  words,  this 
would  destroy  the  distinction  between  the   type  and 
antitype.      Upon  the   above    supposition,   the    typical 
beasts  offered  in  sacrifice,  under  the  former  dispensa- 
tion mast  have  antitypes  under  the  gospel,  in  kind 


25 

and  character  with  themselves.  Unless  this  is  ad- 
mitted, it  follows  undeniably  that  the  natural  seed 
of  Abraham,  born  of  the  flesh  according  to  the  temporal 
promise,  typified  his  spiritual  seed,  born  of  the  Spirit 
according  to  the  promise  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
conclusion  is  triumphant  that  baptism  belongs  only  to 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  whether  they  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles.  "If  they  are  Christ's,  then  are  they 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise." 
"He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised,  shall  be  saved," 
whether  Abraham  or  Cornelius  be  his  fleshly  father. 

The  spiritual  seed  are  distinguished  from  the  world, 
and  their  right  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  established 
by  the  following  considerations,  in  addition  to  the  ex- 
press and  definite  command  of  Christ : 

.1.  The  fleshly  birth  of  the  natural  and  spiritual  seed 
of  Abraham  are  common  to  both,  and,  therefore,  it 
does  not  distinguish  them. 

2.  Without  the  character  of  the  sons  of  God,  they 
are  not  the  spiritual  seed;  but,  "being  born  of  blood, 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  and  of  the  will  of  man,"  (as 
are  the  infants  of  believers  as  well  as  others)  does  not 
give  that  character — therefore,  only  believers  are  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  John  i,  13. 

3.  The  spiritual  birth  has  no  necessary  connection, 
neither  natural  nor  federal,  with  the  fleshly  birth,  there- 
fore, the  former  can  never  be  inferred  from  the  latter. 
It  is  the  result  of  election,  and  not  of  earthly  relation- 
ship. Naturally,  we  are  children  of  wrath.  Nor  have 
we,  as  spiritual  seed,  any  federal  connection  with  the 
fleshly  birth.  For  the  new  covenant  is  not  made  with 
the  natural  seed  of  believers,  as  the  old  temporal  cov- 
enant was  with  the  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham. 

4.  The  natural  seed  of  believers  can  no  more  be  • 
2 


counted  the  spiritual  seed,  than  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham  ;  and  the  apostle  says,  that  they  are  not  ac- 
cording" to  the  flesh   "accounted  for  the  seed." 

5.  Observation  proves,  that  some  of  the  natural  seed 
of  believers  become  spiritual,  but  it  also  proves  that  the 
children  of  infidels  become  Christians.  It  proves,  too, 
that  some  of  the  children  of  both  are  carnal,  impenitent 
and  die  in  their  sins.  Therefore,  christening  does  the 
latter  no  good;  while  baptism  is  the  duty  and  privi- 
lege of  all  who  believe. 

6.  If  the  above  proposition  be  correct,  then  it  fol- 
lows that  no  judgment  can  be  formed  of  the  character 
and  destiny  of  men  either  from  the  faith  or  infidelity  of 
their  parents.  And,  therefore,  baptism  belongs  only 
to  those  described  in  the  command.  From  the  nature 
of  the  institutions  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  it  is  ut- 
terly impossible  that  one  could  be  placed  in  the  room 
of  the  other.  They  are  totally  dissimilar— they  agree 
in  nothing  more  than  any  other  two  things,  of  which  we 
can  form  a  conception.  That  this  may  be  obvious  to 
every  eye,  prejudiced  or  not,  I  here  present  the  con- 
trast in  the  juxtaposition  of  the  ordinances. 


CIRCUMCISION. 

1.  Circumcision  was  ex- 
pressly limited  to  males. 

2.  Circumcision  required  no 
previous  profession  of  faith  and 
repentance. 

3.  Circumcision  did  not  de- 
note the  death,  burial,  and  re- 
surrection of  Jesus  Christ. 

4.  Circumcision  belonged  to 
Abraham's  family,  either  natu- 
tal  or  adopted. 


BAPTISM. 

1.  The  Baptismal  institution 
includes  both  men  and  women. 

2.  The  gospel  requires  this 
profession  without  exception 
to  age,  parentage,  or  circum- 
stance. 

3.  "We  are  buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism,"  and  rise 
with  him  in  the  same. 

4.  Baptism  belongs  to  be- 
lievers of  all  nations,  and  is 
not  in  this  respect  a  wall  of 
partition. 


21 


6.  This  was  to  be  done  on 
the  eighth  day  precisely. 

6.  Infants  were  commanded 
to  be  circumcised. 

7.  The  Bible  never  calls 
circumcision  baptism. 

8.  A  male  servant,  bought 
with  money,  whether  an  athe- 
ist or  believer,  was  to  be  subject 
to  the  rite  as  well  as  the  seed. 

9.  It  was  a  painful — bloody 
rite,  not  performed  on  the  face 
or  forehead. 

10.  It  was  administered  by 
either  of  the  heads  of  the  fami- 
ly, and  not  by  priests. 

1 1 .  The  uncircumcised  were 
not  permitted  to  mingle  with 
the  worshippers  under  that 
dispensation. 

12.  It  forbade  the  usual  ci- 
vilities of  social  life  to  the  un- 
circumcised. 

13.  It  was  a  duty  not  bind- 
ing on  the  child,  but  on  the 
parent.  It.  was  an  act  of  the 
parent.  The  child  was  neu- 
tral. 

14.  Circumcision  required 
no  faith  in  the  parent  to  entitle 
the  child  to  this  ordinance.  It 
was  done  to  the  child  irrespec- 
tive of  the  moral  character  of 
the  parent. 

15.  It  was  not  performed  as 
an  act  of  worship  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  but  merely  as  a 
token  or  a  sign  of  a  covenant 
between  God  and  the  family  of 
Abraham. 


5.  Baptism  is  to  be  peiformed 
at  any  time  that  men  believe. 
6.    Infants   are    no   where 
commanded  to  be  baptised. 

7.  The  Bible  never  calls  bap- 
tism circumcision. 

8.  Baptism  is  applied  to 
none  but  those  who  believe — 
who  are  made  "  free  by  the 
Son,"  and  profess  faith  for 
themselves  in  his  name- 

9.  Baptism  is  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other,  but  simply 
an  immersion  in  water. 

10.  Baptism  is  to  be  admin- 
istered by  those  only  who 
are  qualified  and  commissioned 
to  preach. 

11.  No  such  distinction  is 
made  by  the  law  of  baptism  • 
The  gospel  is  to  be  preached 
unto  all. 

12.  But  baptism  does  not 
prohibit  this—it  rather  encour- 
ages it. 

13.  Baptism  is  obligatory 
on  the  subject.  He  must  not 
be  neutral,  "  repent  and  be 
baptised," 

14.  If  baptism  be  the  sub- 
stitute now,  the  privileges  of 
infants  are  greatly  abridged, 
for  multitudes  go  without,  on 
account  of  new  regulations  in 
Judaized  Churches. 

15.  Baptism  is  a  religious, 
solemn  act  of  worship  render- 
ed to  God, and  administered  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Sou, 
and  Holy  Ghost. 


28 


16.  It  imported  that  those 
who  received  it  were  entitled 
to  all  the  promises  made  to 
Abraham  concerning  his  natu- 
ral seed. 

17.  The  Jews  who  had  re- 
ceived this  rite  were  not  ex- 
empt from  baptism  when  they 
believed,  and  therefore  the  lat- 
ter could  not  have  come  in  the 
room  of  the  former.  They 
were  not  sealed  twice. 


.16.  But  baptism  does  not 
import  that  its  subjects  shall 
enjoy  any  such  temporal  bles- 
sings. 

17  Those,  now,  who  are 
baptised  or  rantised  by  infer- 
ence from  the  law  of  circum- 
cision, ought  to  be  baptised 
when  they  believe,  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  command  of  Christ. 


Under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  Jehovah  administered 
a  moral  government  by  a  system  of  external  law — 
moral,  ceremonial  and  judicial ;  which  embodied  the 
same  principles  of  justice  and  mercy  that  are  more 
fully  presented  in  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  traced 
by  the  hand  of  the  Spirit,  not  on  tables  of  stone,  but 
on  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart.  Hence,  the  latter  is 
called  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  more 
glorious  than  the  ministration  of  law  that  was  "  done 
away  "  and  abolished,  2  Cor.  iii,  7 — 17. 

Though  our  brethren  admit  that  the  ceremonial  law 
was  abolished,  and,  therefore,  not  obligatory  upon 
Christians,  yet  they  fancy  there  must  be  something  in 
the  room,  at  least  of  one  of  them.  One  seems  to  spring 
somehow  from  the  ashes  of  the  other.  The  former 
abolished,  nailed  to  the  cross, — i.  e.,  crucified,  dead, 
and  yet,  still  living  !  The  law  of  circumcision  still 
living  and  in  force  !  What  is  still  more  wonderful,  is 
that  they  infer  infant  baptism  from  it,  and  suppose, 
that  this  meets  the  claims  of  that  law !  Jonah  was,  cer- 
tainly, as  near  going  to  Ninevah  while  on  his  way  to 
Tarshish,  as  our  brethren  are  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law  of  circumcision,  when  they  baptise  their  children. 


29 

Furthermore,  if  the  two  dispensations  are  one,  if  the 
Jewish  nation  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  are  the  same, 
if  the  congregation  of  Israel  and  the  churches  of  Christ 
are  identical,  it  follows,  that  the  Pharisees,  after  all, 
were  right  in  requiring  believers  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  to  be  circumcised  and  keep  the  law  of  Moses. 

But  Dr.  P.  says,  (p.  37,)  that  ''though  one  sign  of 
this  relation  has  been  abolished,  another  has  been  ap- 
pointed," and  that  "  He  who  appointed  circumcision 
to  be  the  sign  of  his  covenant  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation, has,  under  the  milder  dispensation  of  the 
gospel,  appointed  baptism."  Now,  why  does  the  Doc- 
tor so  adroitly  shuffle  from  the  point  ?  Why  did  he 
not  add  "  baptism  to  be  the  sign  of  the  covenant  under 
this  dispensation  ; "  and  then  produce  one  text  to  prove 
that  it  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision  ?  This  he 
well  knew  he  could  not  do.  Words  may  be  multiplied 
to  equal  the  stars  in  the  sky,  but  one  proof  is  worth 
more  than  all  of  them,  where  religious  duty  and  the 
honor  of  God  are  involved. 

On  p.  44,  the  Doctor  argues  that  because  a  change 
of  heart,  the  spiritual  circumcision,  is  the  antitype  of 
the  fleshly  circumcision,  therefore  baptism  came  in  its 
room.  This  unwarrantable  mode  of  arguing  would 
destroy  the  whole  of  the  typical  system  if  followed  out. 
If  baptism  is  the  antitype  of  circumcision,  then  regen- 
eration is  not;  and  then  it  would  follow  that  circum- 
cision was  a  type  of  a  type,  a  shadow  of  a  shadow  ! 
In  opposition  to  this,  Paul  declares,  that  the  "  Law  was 
a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  but  the  body  is 
Christ."  and  not  baptism. 

So  that,  the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision 
is  not  only  totally  unfounded  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  de- 
structive of  the  divinely  appointed  relation  between  the 


30 

types  of  the  former  dispensation,  and   the   spiritual 
blessings  of  the  present. 

The  third  lecture  is  commenced  with  a  repetition  of 
what  the  author  had  often  in  substance  before  stated 
concerning  the  "  sacred  community,"  infant  member- 
ship, and  instituted  sign  of  that  membership,  etc.  It 
were  easy  to  show  that  the  "sacred  community"  were 
a  stiff-necked  people — a  generation  of  vipers,  and  the 
murderers  of  our  Lord,  and  that  the  principal  blessing 
peculiar  to  them  was  the  possession  of  the  "  Oracles  of 
God,"  which  to  infants  is  not  of  much  interest.  And 
as  to  the  "  privilege  so  dear  to  the  heart,"  the  painful 
privilege  that  the  Israelites  seemed  glad  to  neglect,  we 
would  not  "rob"  the  Doctor  or  any  other  child  of  Abra- 
ham of  it,  not  upon  any  account  ;  nor  yet,  of  the  more 
pleasant  privilege  of  human  device,  substituted  ;  if  we 
did  not  think  that  Christ  is  robbed  of  his  glory  as  Law- 
giver in  Zion  thereby.  In  regard  to  "  cutting  off  the 
children  from  the  Christian  church,"  we  remark,  it  is 
impossible,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  were  never 
numbered  among  the  primitive  churches.  The  Doc- 
tor, in  this  respect  is  cruel  to  the  dear  children,  for, 
after  he  initiates  them,  he  prohibits  them  from  enjoy- 
ing the  privileges  of  the  church.  Thousands  have  re- 
ceived the  sign,  have  been  christened,  are  within  the 
pales,  and  have  not  been  taken  once  to  the  Lord's  table 
to  commemmorate  the  death  of  the  Saviour  !  Did 
Christ  prohibit  any  of  his  disciples  ?  Why,  the  Jew- 
ish children  partook  of  the  paschal  supper,  and  are  not 
the  privileges  of  the  gospel  "  greatly  enlarged  ?" 

There  is  abundant  proof  that  the  church  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  the  congregation  of  Israel  led  by  Moses. 
The  same  principles  of  justice  and  mercy  were  exhib- 
ited under  both,  but  the  form  was  totally  different. 


31 

Circumcision  was  a  part  of  the  form.  It  was  appointed 
and  abolished,  with  the  whole  typical  system  of  which 
it  was  a.  part.  Nothing  was  appointed  in  its  stead.  It 
ceased  to  be  binding  upon  the  believing  Jews.  It 
never  was  obligatory  upon  Gentiles.  But  when  God 
Bet  up  a  kingdom  for  his  Son,  He  appointed  two  ordi~ 
nances,  Baptism  and  the  Communion,  for  the  obser- 
vance of  all  believers  of  every  ag£,  as  evidence  of  their 
love,  and  fruits  of  their  faith  in  the  Messiah.  That 
this  has  no  connection  with  the  Jewish  nation  whatever, 
I  proceed  to  show.  John  the  Baptist  was  sent  to  pro- 
claim the  approach  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the 
Pharisees  requested  admission  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  the  children  of  Abraham,  but  they  were  refused. 
The  Gospel  kingdom  was  not  the  Jewish,  or  their  plea 
would  have  availed  them.  Faith  and  repentance  were 
required  as  pre-requisites  to  admission.  Every  tree 
was  required  to  bear  good  fruit  for  itself.  Proxy 
faith,  nor  pious  ancestry  would  answer  this  discri- 
minating spiritual  dispensation.  Mark  iii,  7 — 12  :  iv, 
17:  x,  7,  11,  13.  "The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God."  John  did  baptise  in 
the  wilderness,  and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
etc.,  Mark  i,  1 — 5.  "  The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were 
until  John."  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  Luke  xvi,  16.  From  those  passages  it  is 
clearly  proved  that  the  former  dispensation  or  church 
state  ceased,  and  that  it  had  no  connection  with  the 
gospel  churches  whatever.  The  sceptre  departed  from 
Judah,  because  Shilo  had  come,  to  whom,  and  not  to 
the  standard  of  Moses,  the  people  were  to  gather.  The 
church  of  Christ,  therefore,  is  not  the  same  with  the 
Jewish  church,  although  the  principles  of  piety  are  the 
same  under  all  dispensations.    As  "the  right  of  infants 


32 

to  baptism  "  never  existed,  we  cannot  otherwise  than 
deny  it,  if  we  wish  to  obey  the  Bible.  It  did  not  exist 
in  the  former  dispensation.  It  is  not  mentioned  once 
in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  in  the  New.  The  Doctor 
says,  "to  demand  positive  and  express  authority  for 
infant  baptism  from  the  New  Testament  is  unreasona- 
able."  But  if  it  is  not  in  the  Old,  it  seems  very  reason- 
able we  should  ask  for  it  in  the  New,  especially  as 
baptism  is  a  New  Testament  ordinance.  I  suppose 
our  brethren  would  rather  we  would  not  question  its 
authority  at  all.  It  is  like  the  celebration  of  mass.  It 
can  only  be  proven  from  the  silence  of  the  Bible. 

On  p.  48  the  Doctor  intimates  that  satisfactory  proof 
can  be  adduced  from  the  New  Testament  for  infant 
baptism.  He  does  not  say  "  positive  and  express  au- 
thority." Intelligent  Protestants,  however,  profess  to 
desire  express  authority,  for  whatever  they  do  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  especially,  in  relation  to  positive  insti- 
tutes. If  the  duty  is  not  expressed  in  law  there  is  no 
such  duty  of  course ;  nor  can  any  man  be  disobedient 
in  neglecting  it;  for  if  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  trans- 
gression." The  Doctor  says  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
producing  satisfactory  proof,  and  Protestants  profess 
that  it  must  be  expression  and  not  silence.  Express 
proof  is  not  found  in  the  Testament,  so  the  Doctor  pro- 
ceeds to  draw  inferences  again.  I  will  follow  him  and 
show  that  they  are  as  unfounded  and  far-fetched,  as 
when  he  labors  to  get  baptism  out  of  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcision. 

His  first  argument  is  founded  on  Gal.  iii,  39  :  "  If 
ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  So,  then,  they  which  be  of 
faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham,"  v.  9.  "For 
as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law,  arc  under  the 


33 

curse,"  v.  10.  Now,  it  is  proven  from  the  same  chap, 
ter  that  believers  alone  are  children  of  the  exemplar 
of  faith.  And,  it  follows,  that  they  who  cling  to  cir- 
cumcision, a  work  of  the  law,  are  under  the  curse. 
And  we  have  seen,  that  the  rite  was  s  bloody  and  a 
painful  one,  not  a  " precious  privilege,"  not  a  seal  of 
righteousness  to  any  but  Abraham,  not  a  sign  of  spir- 
itual character. 

Through  the  whole  of  this  argument  the  author  as- 
sumes that  circumcision  was  the  sign  of  an  interest  in 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  baptism  supplies  its 
place.  But,  not  a  single  proof  does  he  present  to  sus- 
tain his  positions.  The  words  of  our  Saviour,  are  next 
quoted,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  etc. 
We  could  quote  scores  of  Paedobaptist  authors  against 
the  Doctor  upon  this  subject.  See  Ann  of  Pool's 
Continuators  and  Dodridge  on  this  text.  I  believe,  no 
one  has  ever  before  pretended  that  this  passage  proves 
infant  baptism.  It  says  not  a  word  upon  the  sub- 
ject; no  more,  than  on  the  subject  of  making  the  sign 
of  the  cross  upon  them.  The  Saviour  blessed  them, 
but  he  did  not  baptise  them,  for  he  baptised  no  one, 
John  iv,  2.  The  interpretation  of  the  phrase  "  king- 
dom of  heaven  "  is  not  sustained.  The  Patriarchs 
were  not  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  heaven  when  those 
words  were  spoken,  consequently,  none  from  the  east 
west,  north  or  south,  could  sit  down  with  them.  Our 
Saviour  represents  persons  of  certain  characters,  as 
endeavoring  to  enter  the  gate-way  of  heaven,  who 
when  they  get  within  the  entrance,  are  found  to  be  des- 
titute of  the  wedding  garment,  and  are  therefore  cast 
out.  Such  were  the  Pharisees,  who  were  persuaded 
by  their  Rabbis,  that  they  were  sufficiently  righteous 
to  enter  the  visible  and  invisible  kingdom,  inasmuch 


34 

as  they  were  the  seed,  and  had  the  sign.  But  while 
such  were  rejected,  the  blessed  Redeemer,  says,  that 
children  are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  that  their 
"  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  in 
heaven."  And  Paul  tells  us  that  angels  are  ministering 
spirits  to  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation,  From 
all  which,  we  learn  that  the  principal  part  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  kingdom  of  glory,  will  be  composed 
of  those  who  die  in  infancy.  This  unspeakable  bles- 
sing, is  not  obtained  by  birth,  baptism,  circumcision, 
nor  any  other  work  of  man,  but  by  the  election  of 
grace,  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  *  The  Church  of 
Home  hath  ordained,  that  as  many  children  may  die 
without  baptism  at  the  hand  of  the  Priest,  and  there- 
fore, be  lost,  unless  they  be  baptised  by  some  one, 
parents  or  any  one  may  perform  the  saving  ceremony. 
The  labor  the  Doctor  has  performed,  and  the  size  of 
his  book,  would  lead  one  to  suppose  he  attached  equal 
importance  to  this  custom. 

The  next  argument  is,  from  the  preaching  of  Peter 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  And  the  very  first  effort 
seems  to  be,  to  divert  the  attention  of  the  reader  from  the 
particular  promise  to  which  the  apostle  refers.  Is  it 
possible  that  the  Doctor  is  unacquainted  with  the  pro- 
mise here  spoken  of  ?  If  he  had  not  referred  to  it  be- 
fore, I  should  be  disposed  to  such  a  conclusion. 
I  confess  my  astonishment  that  the  Doctor  should  say 
that  it  was  the  promise  made  to  Abraham.  Is  there 
no  other  promise  in  the  Bible  ?  I  hope  the  reader  of 
the  lectures  desires  to  know  the  truth.  If  so,  he  will 
carefully  read  the  passage,  Acts  ii,  16 — 39,  in  which 
he  will  easily  preceive  that  the  promise  is  not  that 
made  to  Abraham,  but  that  which  is  recorded  in  Joel 
ii,  28 — 32,      And   Peter   says,  in   contradiction  of 


35 

the  Doctor,  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet  Joel,"  v,  16.  The  promise  of  the  pouring 
forth  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  upon  some  of  the  posterity 
of  the  Jews,  can  have  no  application  to  infants  what- 
ever. The  gifts  were  miraculous.  "Your  sons  and 
daughters  shall  prophecy,  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions.  And  also  upon  the  servants  and  upon  the 
handmaids,  in  those  days  will  I  pour  out  my  Spirit." 
Accordingly,  the  disciples  on  that  occasion  spake  with 
tongues,  seventeen  languages,  and  prophesied.  Were 
the  infants  thus  engaged  ?     Did  they  preach  ? 

After  all  the  Doctor  has  not  found  one  word  in  the 
chapter,  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  Children 
in  the  passage  means  posterity,  descendants.  The 
Greek  word  is  not  the  same  which  usually  expresses  a 
state  of  infancy.  And  the  promise,  is  limited  to  as 
many  as  the  "Lord  shall  call,"  whether  they  shall  be 
Jews  or  Gentiles.  Hence,  "  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word,  were  baptised,"  v,  41.  Afterwards,  they 
partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  the  infants,  were 
not  considered  subjects  of  either  ordinance  at  that  time. 

The  third  argument,  proposes  to  get  something 
from  the  practice  of  the  apostles  to  favor  this  scheme 
of  making  Christians  of  the  poor  babes,  nolens  volens. 
But,  we  shall  now  see,  that  there  is  not  a  trace  of  it  in 
the  history  of  the  first  churches. 

Of  the  thousands  who  were  baptised  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  in  Samaria,  there  is  no  mention  made 
of  believer's  households.  It  is  not  said  that  they  and 
their  children  were  baptised.  In  Samaria,  "both  men 
and  women"  were  baptised,  but  no  children.  Now,  on 
the  supposition  that  children  were  baptised,  is  it  not 
unaccountable  that  the  historian  never  once  mentions 
it  ?     They  never  regarded  them  as  proper  subjects  of 


36 

baptism.  In  the  case  of  the  households,  there  is 
abundant  proof  that  there  were  no  infants  in  them. 
This,  we  cheerfully  furnish,  although  it  is  the  duty  of 
our  opponents  to  prove  the  contrary.  To  do  this,  in 
the  case  of  Lydia,  they  must  first  prove  that  she  ever 
had  a  husband.  If  any  think  she  had,  where  was  he, 
that  he  was  not  attending  to  his  merchandising  ?  And 
if  this  could  be  proved,  it  remains  to  be  shown,  that 
she  had  children  in  infancy.  There  are  thousands  of 
households  without  any  children,  and  thousands  more 
without  young  children.  This,  therefore,  does  not  ap- 
pear from  the  record.  She  was  about  three  hundred 
miles  from  home,  and  evidently  had  no  children  in 
infancy  with  her  at  Philippi.  But  if  we  were  to  admit 
all  of  the  preceding,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  infants 
were  baptised,  from  the  word  household  or  family. 
Thus,  in  1  Sam.  i,  21,  it  is  said  that  "  Elkanah  and 
all  his  house,  went  up  to  offer  up  the  yearly  sacrifice, 
and  his  vow."  But,  it  is  added,  v.  23,  Hannah  went 
not  up  ;  and  in  verse  23,  that  "  So  she  abode,  and  gave 
her  son  suck  until  she  weaned  him."  Samuel  and  his 
mother  were  not  included  in  the  term.  Our  Saviour 
says,  Math,  x,  36,  that,  "  A  man's  foes  shall  be  those 
of  his  own  household."  Surely,  infants  are  not  a  man's 
foes.  We  are  commanded  to  do  good  to  the  household 
of  faith,  Gal.  vi,  10.  None  will  contend  that  infants 
are  of  that  household. 

That  there  were  no  infants  in  Lydia's  household,  is 
perfectly  evident  from  the  fact  recorded  in  Acts  xvi, 
40.  "And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  (Paul  and 
Silas)  and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia;  and  when 
they  had  seen  the  brethren  they  comforted  them,  and 
departed."  Now,  who  ever  heard  of  infants  being 
called  brethren  ?     Who  supposes  that  the  promises  of 


37 

the  gospel,  the  only  consolation  the  apostles  had  to  im- 
part, would  comfort  infants  ?  Creiulous  must  he  be, 
that  can  believe  there  were  infants  in  the  family  of 
Lydia. 

Of  the  house  of  Stephanas  it  is  positively  said,  1 
Cor.  xvi,  15,  that  "  the  house  of  Stephanas  *  *  *  the 
first  fruits  of  Achaia,  *  *  *  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  What  precocious  powers  these 
infants  must  have  possessed,  if  the  guess  of  the  Doctor 
were  true  !  Moreover,  the  apostle  beseeches  the 
churches  of  Corinth,  to  "  submit  unto  such,"  in  the 
next  verse.  Will  our  Paedobaptist  friends  yield  the 
reins  of  the  church  to  the  hands  of  such  ?  This  would 
be  a  great  change  in  their  condition.  Heretofore  they 
have  only  had  the  name  of  being  in  the  church,  mere- 
ly within  its  pales,  but  upon  the  supposition  of  the  Doc- 
tor, and  in  obedience  to  Paul,  a  change  of  places  must 
occur;  "Submit  yourselves  unto  such,"  is  the  com- 
mand. In  the  face  of  these  facts,  what  becomes  of 
the  "legitimate  conclusion?" 

The  jailor  of  Philippi  and  his  household  are  next  to 
be  examined.  The  Doctor  says,  there  is  no  intima- 
tion, "that  any  one  in  these  different  households  be- 
lieved, except  the  head  of  the  family,"  and  then  waits 
for  a  reply.  I  cheerfully  present  it.  Turn,  now,  to 
the  "law  and  the  testimony."  I  speak  to  the  reader, 
as  well  as  the  preacher.  Acts  xvi,  29 — 34.  When 
the  jailor  cried  out,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  clo  to  be 
saved  ?"  they  said,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house,"  upon  the 
same  terms,  of  course.  "And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  Were  infants  subjects  of  gospel  instruction,  or 
discipleship  ?"     "  And   he  took   them  *  *  *  washed 


38 

their  stripes  ;  and  was  baptised,  he  and  all  his,  strait- 
way," — "  all  his,"  who  had  been  instructed,  and  be- 
lieved in  Christ,  as  the  jailor  himself  did.  "And 
when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat 
before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all 
his  house."  Here  the  Holy  Spirit  emphatically  de- 
clares that  all  his  house  believed  ;  not  by  proxy,  but 
in  their  own  souls.  Proxy  faith,  is  not  in  the  Bible. 
Prayers  for  the  dead,  are  as  Scriptural,  as  proxy  faith. 
See  Mathew  Henry,  Dr.  Dodridge,  and  Calvin  on  this 
passage,  how  they  demolish  the  Peedobaptist  argu- 
ment. 

I  have  replied,  and  proved,  that  all  in  the  house  be- 
lieved;  but  the  Doctor  will  never  fulfil  his  promise.  I 
have  the  infallible  testimony  of  the  everlasting  and 
unerring  Spirit,  and  the  law  of  the  Lord,  that  believ- 
ers, only,  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  And 
he,  therefore,  who  utters  the  sacred  name  of  the  au- 
gust Trinity,  over  a  misapplication  of  this  ordinance, 
does  it  without  either  "law"  or  "  authority,"  and 
would  do  well  to  ponder  the  Divine  warning,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain  ; 
for  the  Lord  will  not  hold  him  guiltless,  that  taketh 
his  name  in  vain." 

The  Doctor's  remarks  on  the  house  of  Boaz  amounts 
to  nothing,  for,  according  to  the  text  adduced,  it 
was  a  house,  or  household,  as  soon  as  the  marriage 
was  consumated  ;  nor  does  the  wish,  that  it  should  be 
enlarged,  alter  the  case  ;  it  was  still  nothing  more  than 
a  house,  or  household  The  quotation  from  Paul's 
letter  to  Timothy,  is  equally  inconclusive  ;  for  children 
partly  grown,  need  more  ruling  than  infants,  unless 
they  are  believers,  which  is  sometimes  the  case,  even, 
at  the  age  of  eight  or  ten  years. 


39 

The  reference  made  to  proselyte  baptisms  is  of  lit- 
tie  consequence  in  this  controversy.  Dr.  Owen  and 
many  other  Psedobaptists  argue  that  no  such  custom 
existed  among  the  Jews.  All  concede  that  there  were 
"divers  washings"  among  them  ;  and  it  is  equally  plain 
that  bathing  has  been  in  practice  among  the  Gentiles 
from  time  immemorial,  in  which,  of  course,  chil- 
dren were  included,  because  they  stood  in  need  of 
washing.  But  who  supposes  that  when  our  Lord  ap- 
pointed a  positive  ordinance  for  the  observance  of  his 
followers  in  every  age,  that  he  would  adopt  a  rite,  be- 
cause it  was  a  custom  prevalent  among  men  ?  Did 
his  own  mental  resources  fail  him  ?  Absurd  supposi- 
tion !  Baptism,  is  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
he  who  commenced  the  administration  of  this  sacred 
rite,  was  a  "man  sent  from  God,"  who  did  not  think 
of  looking  after  "washings"  among  men,  but  who  re- 
garded only  the  authority  of  God,  "He  who  sent  me 
to  baptise,"  etc.,  John  1,  33. 

As  the  Doctor  could  find  no  proof  in  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles  for  infant  baptism,  the  effort  to  gain  some- 
thing from  Jewish  purifications,  appears  to  be  a  kind 
dernier  resort.  For,  he  might  as  well  argue,  that  be- 
cause all  parents  in  the  land  wash  themselves  and  their 
children,  therefore  the  children  of  believers  ought  to 
be  baptised  ! 

Under  his  fourth  head,  he  endeavors  to  find  infant 
membership  in  the  case  of  the  believing  and  unbeliev- 
ing parents,  1  Cor.  vii,  14.  "  Else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  Some  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  church  at  Corinth  had  some  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  living  with  an  unconverted  partner.  The 
apostle  instructs  them  to  abide  with  their  unbelieving 
husbands  or  wives,  for,  the  one,  he  says,  is  sanctified 


40 

by  the   other,  i.  e.  the  unbelieving  by  the  believing 
And  the  propriety  of  this  he  shows  by  the  consequence 
that   would  follow  the    contrary  supposition,     "Else 
were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 
Believing  in   Christ,  does  not  nullify  the  sacred  rela- 
tion of  marriage,  but  renders  it  more  endearing,  and 
secures  to  the  children  of  such  parent  or  parents  more 
tender   care,  as  their   legitimate   offspring,   and  thus 
sanctifies  the  relation  to  all  concerned.     And  he  fur- 
ther declares,  that  it  is  probable  under  the  divine  bless- 
ing, that  the   believing  partner,  by  abiding  with  the 
unbelieving  partner,  might  win  such  an  one  to  Christ. 
The  term  "holy,"  in  the  passage,  is  employed  in 
the  sense   of  "legitimate."      The   apostle  says,  that 
"  Marriage  is  honorable  to  all,  the  bed  undefiled,"  etc. 
The  parents  in  the  church  at  Corinth  were  married,* 
and  their  children  were  legitimate,  pure  or  holy,  be- 
cause their  parents  were  married,  and  the  bed  unde- 
filed, legitimate,  pure  or  holy.     The  law  of  faith,  does 
not,  therefore,  make  void  either  the  connubial  or  pa- 
rental   relation.      And    this  was  the   doubt  of  these 
Corinthians.     If  the  marriage  relation,  were  dissolved 
by  the  possession  of  faith  on  the  one  part,  then,  the 
apostle  would  seem  to  argue,  that  the  filial  and  pater- 
nal relation  would  also  be  dissolved  in  that  case.     Both 
the  unbelieving  partner  and  children  stood  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  believing  partner,  and,  therefore,  the 
same  to  the  church.     So  that,  if  the  believing  partner 
were  to  cast  off  the  unbelieving  partner,  she  must  also 
cast  off  her  children,  for  their  relation  to  her,  grows 
out  of  her  relation  to  her  husband.     And  if  our  breth- 
ren will  baptise  the  children,  therefore,  because  they 
are  sacredly  related  to  their  believing  mother,  they 
must  also  baptise  the  unbelieving  husband,  for  he  is 


41 

equally  sanctified  by  his  believing  wife.  We  are  shu* 
up  to  this  conclusion.  And  now  we  ask  the  Doctoi 
which  is  the  most  "  ridiculous,"  the  sense  of  "  legiti- 
mate," or  the  legitimate  conclusion  from  the  Doctor's 
premise  ? 

The  Baptists  contend  that  "  holy  "  matrimony  se- 
cures "  legitimacy  "  or  cleanliness  to  the  descendants, 
independent  of  faith  in  the  parent  or  parents.  And  as 
to  the  dedication  of  which  the  Doctor  speaks,  it  is  with- 
out the  shadow  of  foundation.  He  is  upon  this,  as 
upon  circumcision,  self-contradictory.  The  argument 
amounts  to  this,  the  children  ought  to  be  dedicated,  be- 
cause they  are  born  holy  of  believing  parents.  They 
ought  to  be  made  holy  by  dedication,  because  their  pa- 
rents are  believers  !  This  is  precisely  of  a  piece  with  the 
argument,  that  because  they  are  children  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  they  have  a  right  to  baptism,  being  in  the 
covenant  by  birth  ;  and  ought  to  be  baptised  because 
it  is  the  initiating  ordinance  into  the  covenant ! 

There  is  no  wish  manifest  in  the  Doctor's  argument 
that  the  servants  should  partake  of  the  seal,  as  they 
did  in  Abraham's  day.  No  desire,  that  they  should 
be  taken  into  covenant  relation  with  God  by  baptismal 
dedication  on  the  strength  of  the  faith  of  the  head  of 
the  household.  This  is  a  gross  departure  from  the 
stipulations  of  the  covenant.  Surely,  if  the  unbeliev- 
ing husband  can  be  sanctified,  and  the  children  of  such 
be  baptised,  there  might  be  room  in  some  corner  of 
the  covenant  for  the  poor  orphan  servants,  especially, 
as  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  are  "much  enlarged" 
in  this  dispensation !  Cannot  these  poor  souls  be  "in- 
cluded in  the  bond  of  God's  covenant  with  his  church  ?" 
"  The  children  inherit  the  privileges  of  the  covenant 
from  the  believing  parents,"  and  yet,  there  is  no  such 


42 

mercy  in  this  scheme  for  the  servant  of  "the  seed, 
though  both  his  master  and  mistress  may  be  believers  ! 
What  is  the  gospel  dispensation  less  "benign"  than  the 
covenant  of  circumcision?  Though  I  ask  these  questions 
to  show  how  inconsistent  these  brethren  are  with  their 
professed  attachment  to  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  I 
do  not  wonder  that  they  do  not  "  care  for  the  soul  "  of 
their  servants  in  this  respect,  for,  they  who  can  invade 
the  prerogative  of  Immanuel  to  give  laws  to  his  people 
by  surperceding  them,  and  "making  them  void  by  men's 
traditions."  and  thus  rob  Him  of  his  glory  as  King  in 
Zion,  can,  without  scruple,  refuse  to  give  the  infant 
servant,  the  "  benefits  of  the  covenant."  This  "right" 
is  now  denied  them,  though  it  would  seem  that  our 
brethren  think  that  the  salvation  of  the  soul  depends 
upon  having  the  sprinkling  seal,  upon  their  foreheads. 
If  this  is  not  the  sentiment,  why  do  they  labor  so  hard 
and  so  long  to  eke  out  of  some  dark  passage  a  little  in- 
ferrential  proof  for  their  favorite  device  ?  The  Bible, 
however,  remains  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject 
of  infant  baptism.  And  Christ  is  still  demanding  our 
confidence  as  the  only  foundation  of  our  hope,  for  the 
salvation  of  our  own  souls,  and  that  of  the  souls  of  our 
children.  May  we  not  "crucify  Him  afresh  and  put 
him  to  an  open  shame,"  by  disbelieving  the  fullness  of 
his  grace,  the  completeness  of  his  righteousness,  the 
efficacy  of  his  blood,  the  seeding  of  his  Spirit,  and 
leaning  upon  a  christening  ceremony  of  man's  inven- 
tion !  Infidel  France,  superstitious  Germany,  Italy 
with  her  sales  of  new-made  relics  of  the  cross,  and 
traffic  in  indulgences,  and  seat  of  the  Beast  !  Bloody 
Spain,  Portugal  and  Mexico,  and  degraded  South 
America  are  specimens  of  the  baleful  tendency  of  this 
anti-christian  practice.     All  of  these  are  christened. 


43 

Although  Christ  declared  to  his  disciples,  that  his 
"kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,"  yet  men  have  taken 
it  upon  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  word  of  God, 
to  open  this  sluice,  for  the  world  to  flow  into  it,  until 
pure  Christianity,  both  in  its  spirit  and  in  form,  is  almost 
entirely  obscured.  For  centuries,  it  was  to  be  found 
not  in  the  christened  church,  but  in  the  remote  vallies 
of  Piedmont,  and  in  the  mountains  of  Wales,  repre- 
sented as  heretical  by  the  anti-christian  power  that  was 
erected  and  rested  on  this  main  pillar  of  Popery. 
Trusting  to  this  sprinkling  operation,  millions  of  souls 
in  mystical  Babylon  have  gone  securely  to  ruin.  With 
the  introduction  of  this  error,  nearly  all  of  the  errors 
of  the  anti-christian  church  were  introduced.  Infant 
baptism  and  infant  communion  were  originated  at  the 
same  date,  and  rest  on  the  same  ground.  The  Jewish 
children  of  Rome  partook  of  the  paschal  lamb  as  well 
as  the  "  precious  privilege  "  of  circumcision.  They 
both  originated  in  Africa,  the  darkest  part  in  Chris- 
tendom ;  and  with  them  the  consecration  of  water — 
the  use  of  sponsors — the  sign  of  the  cross — the  form 
of  renouncing — unction — anointing  with  oil — the  giv- 
ing a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey  to  persons  just 
baptised — prayers  and  oblations  for  the  dead,  and  a 
score  of  other  fooleries  ;  these  were  mentioned  by 
Tertullian  for  the  first  time,  and  afterwards  maintained 
and  industriously  propagated  by  Augustine.  As  the 
Doctor  has  totally  failed  to  find  precept,  example,  or 
even  a  shadow  for  infant  baptism  in  the  word  of  God, 
he  proceeds,  page  72,  to  search  the  Pandora  of  human 
tradition  for  authority  in  favor  of  this  custom  of  the 
Romish  church. 

The  first  reference  he  makes  is  to  Justin  Martyr, 
who  says  "  we  have  received  the  spiritual  circumci- 


44 

sion,  by  baptism,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  because  we 
were  sinners."  Does  the  Doctor  endorse  this  sentiment 
taken  literally  ?  I  have  already  observed  that  infant 
baptism  was  first  practised  because  of  its  supposed 
saving  efficacy.  This  very  doctrine  is  the  essence  of 
Antichrist.  And  the  same  expediency  which  devised 
it,  also  dictated  the  sale  of  indulgences,  purgatory, 
pilgrimages,  prayers  for  the  dead,  etc.  I  take  a  dif- 
ferent view,  however,  of  the  meaning  of  Justin,  from 
what  he  afterwards  says  in  his  address  to  the  Emperor 
Antonius  Pius.  From  which  we  learn  he  seems  to 
have  regarded  it  not  as  a  regenerating  process,  but  the 
emblem  of  grace  previously  received.  He  says,  H  I 
will  now  lay  before  you  the  manner  in  which,  on  our 
own  conversion,  we  dedicate  ourselves  to  God  through 
Christ,  lest,  if  I  omitted  this,  my  address  might  be 
suspected  of  sincerity.  As  many,  therefore,  as  are 
persuaded  and  believe,  that  the  things  taught  and  said 
by  us,  are  true,  and  take  upon  them  to  live  accordingly, 
are  taught  to  pray  and  ask  God,  with  fastings,  the 
forgiveness  of  their  former  sins  :  we  uniting  with  them 
in  these  exercises.  Then  (  and  not  till  then,  )  they 
are  brought  to  a  place  of  water,  and  there  regenerated 
after  the  same  manner  of  ourselves."  This  clearly 
proves  that  the  "childhood"  mentioned  by  Justin 
was  not  infancy.  He  moreover  professed  sincerity  in 
this  address  before  the  emperor.  But  upon  the  sup- 
position that  they  practised  infant  baptism,  he  was 
guilty  of  the  most  revolting  duplicity.  In  addition  to 
this,  as  the  apostles  baptised  none  but  those  who  be- 
lieved, gladly  received  the  word,  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  etc.,  these  persons  must  have  been  old  enough 
to  understand  and  believe  the  gospel. 

In  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Tertuilian,  I  remark. 


45 

that  without  perversion  it  cannot  support  the  cause  for 
which  it  is  adduced.  Venema  says,  in  his  history  of 
the  church,  vol.  3,  p.  108,  that  "he  has  nowhere 
mentioned  infant  baptism  among*  the  customs  of  the 
church.  For  he  dissuades  from  baptising  infants,  and 
proves  a  delay  of  it,  to  a  more  mature  age,  is  to  be 
preferred." 

The  passage  alluded  to  is  as  follows  :  "  The  delay 
of  baptism  may  be  more  advantageous  either  on 
account  of  the  condition,  disposition  or  age  of  any 
person,  especially  in  reference  to  little  children.  For 
what  necessity  is  there  that  the  sponsors  should  be 
brought  into  danger  ?  because  either  they  themselves 
may  fail  of  their  promises  by  death,  or  be  deceived  by 
the  growth  of  evil  dispositions  (  in  the  children.) 
The  Lord  indeed  says,  '  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come 
unto  me.'  Let  them,  therefore,  come  when  they  are 
grown  up  ;  when  they  can  understand ;  when  they  are 
taught  to  what  they  are  to  come.  Let  them  become 
christians  when  they  can  know  Christ.  Why  should 
this  innocent  age  hasten  to  (  the  sign  of  )  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ?  Men  act  more  cautiously  in  earthly 
things  ;  so  that  divine  things  are  here  intrusted  with 
whom  earthly  things  are  not.  Let  them  know  how  to 
seek  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  give  to  one  that 
asketh." 

Now,  does  not  the  reader  clearly  perceive  that 
infant  baptism  is  referred  to  by  Tertullian  on  purpose 
to  disapprove  and  condemn  it  ?  He  represents  it  as 
an  innovation,  which  he  considered  Ins  duty  strongly 
and  decidedly  to  oppose.  There  is  nothing  proven, 
therefore,  by  the  passage,  except  that  persons  ought  to 
hiovj  Christ  before  they  are  baptised  ;  and  that  about 
that  time  the  error  of  infant  baptism,  the  sign  of  the 


46 

cross,  etc.,  began  to  be  introduced.  The  reader  must 
always  bear  in  mind  that  there  is  a  wide  difference 
between  ancient  Christianity  and  primitive  Christianity. 
The  former,  which  took  its  rise  in  the  second  century, 
is  what  gave  the  power,  the  pope,  and  all  the  mum- 
meries to  the  church  of  Rome.  The  latter  is  found 
alone  in  the  Bible. 

The  controversy  now  going  on  between  the  Oxford 
tract,  popish  party,  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  the 
more  evangelical  party,  is  upon  this  very  subject, 
whether  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers  are  of  equal 
authority  with  the  word  of  God,  or  not  ?  If  the  rea- 
der will  consult  Isaac  Taylor's  new  work  and  Bishop 
M'Vaine's,  he  will  see  many  developments  of  the  cor- 
ruptions of  the  second  and  third  centuries ;  and  the 
one  which  we  now  oppose  among  the  rest. 

The  next  witness  the  Doctor  introduces  is  Origen, 
who  was  born  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century. 
He  was  a  learned  man,  says  the  Doctor.  I  say  he 
was  one  of  the  most  whimsical  interpreters  of  scrip- 
ture that  ever  lived.  He  was  an  "  everlasting  alle- 
gorizer "  according  to  a  Pcedobaptist  author,  and 
condemned  on  different  occasions  for  his  numerous 
errors.  Let  history  decide  between  us.  Dr.  Wall  has 
shown  clearly  that  by  babes  in  Christ  was  meant,  by 
Origen,  such  as  "  desire  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word," 
spoken  of  by  Peter.  The  quotation  made  by  the 
Doctor  is  a  mere  interpolation  made  by  Ruffinus,  who 
pretended  to  translate  the  Greek  of  Origen  into  the 
Latin  language.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Dodridge, 
and  proved  by  Dr.  Gill,  from  the  genuine  Greek  frag- 
ments of  his  works.  Besides,  the  "  Apostle's  order  " 
could  as  easily  be  seen  by  us  as  by  Origen,  if  it  were 
in  the  New  Testament. 


47 

The  next  witness  the  Doctor  brings  forward  is 
Cyprian,  who  gives  the  decree  of  a  council  held  in 
Carthage  about  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
The  Doctor  takes  peculiar  care  to  keep  back  the  ground 
upon  which  this  decision  was  formed.  It  would  have 
shown  the  character  of  this  famous  council  very  much 
to  his  disadvantage.  This  is  the  very  council  to  which 
the  Romanist  refers  for  authority  for  exorcism,  pray- 
ers for  the  dead,  etc.  Will  the  Doctor  indorse  its 
doctrines  and  doings  ?  If  he  does  in  one  respect,  he 
is  bound  to  do  it  in  all,  or  it  is  no  authority.  But,  to 
the  record — Fidus  asked,  "may  children  be  bap- 
tised" ?  (  the  question  proves  that  it  was  a  novelty.) 
To  which  the  council  replied :  "  God  denies  grace  to 
none  ;  Jesus  came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to 
save  them.  Besides,  God  would  be  a  respector  of  per- 
sons if  he  denied  to  infants  what  he  grants  to  adults. 
Did  not  the  prophet  Elisha  lay  upon  a  child,  and  put 
his  mouth  upon  his  mouth,  and  his  eyes  upon  his  eyes, 
and  his  hands  upon  his  hands  ?  Now  the  spiritual 
sense  of  this  is,  that  infants  are  equal  to  men  :  but  if 
you  refuse  to  baptise  them  you  destroy  this  equality 
and  are  partial."  There  we  see  baptismal  regener- 
ation and  more.  In  the  estimation  of  those  corruptors 
of  Christianity,  baptism  was  not  only  efficacious  in 
saving  the  subject,  but  also  miraculous  in  its  power ! 
I  had  begun  to  think,  as  I  advanced  in  the  perusal  of 
the  work,  that  the  Doctor  was  disposed  to  attach  sav- 
ing importance  to  this  business,  but  I  was  by  no  means 
prepared  to  suppose  he  would  so  verbosely  laud  the 
above  decision  about  the  miraculous  power  of  this 
saving  invention.  Gullibility,  itself,  could  not  be 
induced  to  believe  in  the  purity  or  wisdom  of  such  a 
council ! 


48 

Augustine  is  the  last  witness  whom  the  Doctor  in- 
troduces. He  espoused  the  cause  of  infant  baptism, 
and  did  all  in  his  power  to  oblige  all  churches  to 
espouse  it  too.  (  Like  his  namesake,  who  was  sent  in 
the  seventh  century  as  a  missionary  from  the  church 
of  Rome  to  Britain,  and  met  with  a  christian  associa- 
tion of  ministers  and  members,  in  the  vale  of  Carleon, 
and  argued  with  them  at  great  length  upon  the  subject, 
urging  them  to  receive  this  custom  of  his  church,  but 
they  refused  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  found  in 
the  word  of  God,  and  whereupon,  he  called  upon  the 
soldiery,  and  cut  to  pieces  several  hundred  of  them 
for  their  obstinacy  against  the  "  traditions  of  men." 
See  Ivemy's  history  of  the  English  Baptists.  Also, 
Davis'  history  of  the  Welsh  Baptists.)  It  ought  to  be 
observed  here,  that  Augustine,  although  a  child  of 
christian  parents,  was  not  baptised  himself  until  he 
was  grown  to  manhood,  The  same  remark  was  true 
of  many  others  of  the  Fathers.  Under  the  influence 
of  this  monk  a  council  was  convened  at  Carthage,  A. 
D.  416,  to  condemn  the  heresy  of  Pelagius,  and  from 
Carthage  fourteen  of  them  adjourned  to  Melo  in  Nu- 
media.  At  this  counsel  Augustine  presided,  and 
succeeded  in  procuring  the  passage  of  the  following 
decree  :  "It  is  the  pleasure  of  all  the  bishops  present 
in  the  holy  synod,  to  order  that  whosoever  denieth 
that  infants  newly  born  of  their  mothers,  are  to  be 
baptised,  shall  be  accursed."  This  decree  was  sent  to 
Rome,  and  ratified  by  Pope  Innocent,  then  by  Pope 
Zozimue,  and  afterwards  by  Pope  Boniface.  Thus, 
this  murderous  monk  served  the  cause  of  Popery  and 
the  devil,  in  first  obtaining  the  ratification  of  his 
anathema  against  the  christians,  and  then  under  the 
sanction,  and  with  the  power  of  the  Bishops,  in  pro- 


49 

ceeding  to  murder  the  followers  of  the  Lamb,  because 
they  refused  to  "  make  void  the  commands  of  God  by 
the  traditions  of  men."  At  this  time,  there  were  four 
hundred  churches  in  Africa  that  refused  submission  to 
this  imperious  prelate,  on  account  of  which  persecution 
ra^ed  against  them  until  it  was  said,  "it  was  not 
Austin's  fault  that  one  was  left  to  tell  the  barbarous 
tale." 

This  active  tool  of  the  Bishop,  said  that  "  he  never 
heard  of  any  one  who  maintained  that  baptism  is  de- 
nied to  infants."  And  yet  this  same  fellow  once 
pretended  to  be  of  the  sect  of  Manicheans,  who  every 
one  knows,  denied  infant  baptism.  He  also  taxed  Pel- 
agius with  the  same  thing,  and  complained  of  other 
heretics  who  denied  it.  The  quotation  from  Pelagius 
is  proved  by  Dr.  Gill,  to  mean  not  exactly  what  Dr. 
Pressly  would  have  it  express.  His  words  are,  "  that 
he  never  heard,  no,  not  any  impious  heretics,  that 
would  say  concerning  infants,  what  he  proposed  or 
mentioned."  The  phrase  what  he  'proposed  or  mention- 
ed, Dr.  G.  shows  does  not  mean  that  infants  are  not  to 
be  baptised.  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that  Pelagius  did 
not  mean  any  such  thing,  from  the  fact  that  he  was 
charged  by  Augustine  with  denying  infant  baptism. 
But,  both  of  these  authorities  are  too  late,  for  all  con- 
cede that  the  worship  of  images  commenced  before 
this  time,  and  many  other  corruptions. 

The  Donatists,  and  afterwards  the  Waldenses  and 
many  other  churches,  who  were  esteemed  heretics, 
still  adhered  to  believer's  baptism,  and  opposed  the 
innovations  of  the  "general  church,"  (  as  the  Doctor 
calls  it.)  And  as  it  regards  the  prevalence  of  infant 
baptism,  from  the  time  of  Augustine  down  to  the  Re- 
formation, we  readily  acknowledge  that  this  was  the 
3 


50 

case  in  the  church  of  Rome,  but  it  cannot  be  proved 
that  the  christian  churches  in  Piedmont  and  Britain 
practiced  this  device.  On  the  contrary,  Dr.  Allix, 
William  Jones,  in  his  history  of  the  Waldenses,  Robin- 
son and  others,  show  triumphantly  that  amid  the  most 
cruel  persecutions  they  persisted  in  opposing  this  tra- 
dition. The  records  of  the  church  of  Rome  prove  the 
same  thing.  This  "was  one  of  the  things  charged 
against  them,  that  they  would  not  submit  to  the  coun- 
cils and  Bishops  of  the  church.  See  Milner's  end  of 
controversy  on  this  subject.  Mr.  Hughes,  charged 
Mr.  Brackenridge  with  practising  infant  baptism  after 
the  church  of  Rome,  and  not  according  to  the  Protes- 
tant Rule  of  faith.  Mr.  Brackenridge  did  not  attempt 
to  deny  it. 

We  close  these  references  with  one  quotation  from 
Dr.  Mosheim,  the  text  book  of  Church  history,  I  sup- 
pose, in  the  Seminary  over  which  the  Doctor  presides, 
a  Peedobaptist  too,  second  century,  he  says,  "  The  per- 
sons to  be  baptised,  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed, 
confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  particularly  the 
Devil  in  his  pompuous  allurements,  were  immersed  un- 
der water,  and  received  into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a 
solemn  invocation  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost." 
I  would  refer  the  reader  to  scores  of  other  testimonies, 
in  Booth,  Hinton,  and  Carson's  works  on  this  subject. 

It  appears  entirely  conclusive,  that  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  was  broached  at  an  early  day 
and  then  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  introduced. 
While,  however,  it  is  ineficient  as  a  saviour,  and 
anti-christian  in  origin  and  character,  it  serves  the 
same  purpose  as  did  the  traditions  of  the  Pharisees, 
"  to  make  void  the  commandments  of  God." 


51 

The  Institution  of  Baptism 

In  reply  to  the  fourth  Lecture,  I  proceed  to  consider 
the  institution  itself.  And  here  I  would  premise,  that 
the  term  mode  is  made  use  of  by  our  opponents  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  destroying  the  ordinance,  which,  I 
hope  to  make  apparent  to  every  mind.  I  have  here- 
tofore spoken  of  "  infant  baptism,"  while  discussing 
the  subjects  of  the  ordinance,  because  the  Doctor  ar- 
gues in  favor  of  it.  But  I  shall  now  show,  that  while 
he  talks  of  "infant  baptism,"  he  practices  infant  ran- 
tism.  I  am  aware  that  many  baptist  writers,  have  fol- 
lowed their  brethren  in  the  use  of  the  term  mode  in 
controversy  upon  this  subject,  out  of  courtesy  ;  while 
both  truth,  and  the  laws  of  language,  have  been  viola- 
ted as  the  necessary  consequence.  I  cannot  compro- 
mit  the  claims  of  righteousness,  and  dishonor  Christ, 
for  the  sake  of  politeness  to  men.  The  price  is  too 
great  for  the  purchase  of  human  favor.  In  the  search 
for  Divine  obligation,  I  hope  never  to  be  left  so  much 
to  myself,  as  to  ask  for  the  voice  of  the  'people.  "  To 
the  law  and  the  testimony"  should  be  our  motto  ;  and 
implicit  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  our  greatest 
pleasure. 

Philosophical  View. 

Every  distinct  substance,  possesses  a  form,  mode,  or 
figure,  peculiar  to  itself  or  class.  This  is  true  from  the 
fflobe  down  to  an  atom,  whether  we  regard  animate  or 
inanimate  creation. 

Mathematical  science  ascertains  the  nicer  shades  of 
distinction  between  the  forms  of  substances,  and  modes 
of  action,  by  taking  its  observations  from  an  axiom 
founded  in  common  sense,  viz.,  Two  things  cannot  be 
one  thing,  while  totally  distinct — a  square  and  a  circle 


52 

are  not  the  same  figure,  for  the  self-evident  reason 
that  they  are  entirely  dissimilar.  To  confound  things 
which  are  distinct  in  form,  therefore,  would  be  no 
more  unphilosophical,  or  untrue,  than  to  confound  two 
distinct  actions  in  moral  conduct  under  the  same  name. 
But  God  has  required  a  specific  action  from  all  intelli- 
gent, spiritual  subjects  of  his  moral  government  under 
the  name  of  baptism,  and  therefore,  no  other  action  is 
obedience  to  the  divine  law  than  the  one  specified.  If 
therefore,  sprinkling  is  baptism,  immersion  is  not,  for 
two  things  cannot  be  one,  Avhile  distinct  and  dissimilar. 
But  if  immersion  is  baptism,  then  sprinkling  is  not,  for 
the  same  reason.  That  immersion  fulfils  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek  word,  and  is  the  primary  definition,  every 
Lecxicographer  declares,  and  all  our  opponents  admit ; 
therefore,  sprinkling,  being  a  different  action  altogether 
does  not  fulfil  the  requisition  of  the  law.  Crossing,  or 
whipping  the  subject,  would,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  be 
as  near  baptism,  as  the  action  of  sprinkling  the  subject. 
This  becomes  more  obvious,  if  we  apply  the  above 
principle.  In  morals,  as  in  natural,  or  mathematical 
science,  in  regard  to  form  and  figure,  every  action  has 
modes  peculiar  to  itself.  Hence,  I  may  immerse  or 
baptise  a  person  sidewise,  forward,  or  backward.  Here 
are  three  distinct  modes  of  baptism.  So,  the  Doctor 
might  rantise  or  sprinkle  a  person,  with  a  branch,  a 
broom,  or  his  fingers.  Here  are  three  modes  of  sprink- 
ling peculiar  to  the  action.  These  modes  are  not  trans- 
ferable from  one  action  to  the  other,  for  the  common 
sense  reason,  that  the  actions  are  not  the  same.  No  man 
would  suppose  he  could  immerse  another  by  any  of 
the  modes  of  sprinkling.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand  would 
any  man  think  he  had  sprinkled  another  when  he  had 
immersed  him.    Sprinkling  cannot  be  called  a  mode  of 


53 

baptism,  therefore,  without  an  abuse  of  language  ;  nor 
can  it  be  called  baptism  itself,  unless  we  violate  the  ob- 
vious principles  of  philosophy,  and  plain  common  sense. 
Nor,  yet,  will  any  man  argue  that  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, the  most  copious  in  the  world,  perhaps,  is  so 
poor  that  it  does  not  afford  a  name  for  the  action  of 
sprinkling.  Our  brethren  would  seem  to  wish  to  give 
coloring  to  this  idea,  at  least,  from  the  fact  that  they 
use  a  term  whose  radical  idea  is  immersion,  according 
to  their  own  admission,  to  express  that  of  sprinkling  ; 
as  though,  in  all  the  Greek,  there  were  not  a  single 
term  whose  appropriate  province  it  is  to  express  that 
idea.  What  then  is  the  corresponding  Greek  word  for 
the  English  word  sprinkle  ?  I  reply,  rantizo.  Now, 
if  the  reader  will  change  the  termination  by  substitu- 
ting e  for  o  he  will  transfer  it  into  our  language,  just 
as  King  James'  translators  transferred  the  Greek  term 
baptizo  into  our  language.  Give  it  the  English  end- 
ing, and  you  have  the  word  rantise.  As  the  meaning 
of  baptizo,  according  to  classic  usage,  and  all  the 
Lexicons,  is  dipping,  it  would  be  just  as  proper,  philo- 
sophically and  etymologically,  for  our  brethren  to  call 
rantism  or  sprinkling,  immersion,  as  it  is  for  them  to 
call  the  action  of  sprinkling,  baptism.  But,  as  sprink- 
ling is  not  immersion,  therefore  it  is  not  baptism.  And 
it  follows,  by  consequence,  that  those  who  have  beeD 
sprinkled,  have  been  rantised,  and  not  baptised. 

Strictures  on  the  plea  for  Rantism. 

On  page  84,  the  Doctor  argues  that  the  partaking 
of  a  small  portion  of  bread  and  wine  cannot  properly 
be  called  a  supper.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  so  called  it ;  and  besides  no  one 
supposes  that  the    quantity  a  man  eats  decides  the 


54 

character  of  a  meal,  or  that  it  is  necessary  to  consti- 
tute it  a  supper.  So  that  he  eats  the  bread  and  drinks 
the  wine,  it  is  all  that  is  required.  Eating  and  drink- 
ing the  elements  are  indispensible,  regardless  of  the 
mode  of  eating,  or  the  posture  of  the  body.  The 
Baptist  churches  generally,  perhaps  universally,  ad- 
minister the  communion  in  the  evening  of  the  day. 

Our  author  talks  of  applying  water  to  the  body. 
This  is  as  if  we  should  speak  of  applying  the  cemetery 
to  the  corpse  on  a  funeral  occasion.  The  command 
says,  "baptising  them"  that  hear  and  believe,  and 
the  history  declares  of  believers,  "  we  are  buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism."  The  person  is  the  subject,  and 
not  the  water. 

On  page  87,  the  Doctor  commences  his  argument 
by  quoting  from  Acts  ii,  17.  If  the  reader  will  turn 
to  page  53  of  the  Lectures,  he  will  discover  how  easih 
the  Doctor  can  keep  Joel  out  of  sight,  and  put  the  pro- 
mise to  Abraham  in  the  mouth  of  Peter.  But  the 
Doctor  was  on  the  subjects  of  baptism  when  he  penned 
that  lecture  ;  and  Joel's  young  men  and  old  men,  who 
should  prophecy,  could  not  by  any  process  of  his,  be 
turned  into  babes,  so  as  to  suit  his  purpose.  Now,  the 
subject  is,  whether  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  were 
sprinkled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  immersed  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  In  support  of  the  former,  the  Doctor 
asserts  that  "  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  were  baptised 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  having  his  divine  influences 
poured  out  upon  them."  But,  what  saith  the  record? 
"  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing, 
mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting."      "And  they  were  all  tilled  with  the 


OD 

Holy  Ghost  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as> 
the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  It  appears  plainly 
from  the  "  testimony,"  that  they  were  completely 
overwhelmed  with  the  Spirit,  as  the  immersed  person 
is  with  the  water,  and  also  filled  with  it.  Does  this 
look  like  a  sprinkling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  The  Holy 
Ghost  was  on  them  of  course,  as  it  was  all  around 
and  in  them,  and  "  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting."  How  unenviable  the  task  of  attempt- 
ing to  diminish  the  grandeur  of  the  Divine  displays 
of  grace,  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  Saviour  of 
the  honor  due  to  Him  from  all  of  his  professing  subjects  ! 

It  ought  to  be  remembered  here  that  the  Greek  par- 
ticle en  rendered  "  with  "  in  our  version,  is  rendered 
in  several  of  the  first  English  versions  by  the  word 
"in."  "I  indeed  baptise  you  in  water  and  he  that 
cometh  after  me  shall  baptise  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Tyndale  has  it  "in"  water,  and  "with"  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Matt,  iii,  11.  In  the  corresponding  passage, 
in  the  testimony  of  Mark  i,  5,  it  is  said  they  were 
"baptised  en  in  Jordan,  for  the  idea  of  taking  up  the 
river  and  sprinkling  it  on  them  would  have  been  too 
barbarous  ;  nor  could  they  say  "with  the  water  of  the 
Jordan,"  for  this  would  have  been  such  a  manifest  de- 
parture from  the  original,  that  the  curse  in  Rev.  xxii, 
19,  would  have  been  dreaded  by  them.  But,  as  the 
particle  en  may  sometimes  be  rendered  "  with,"  and  as 
the  translators  were  forbidden  by  King  James  to 
translate  the  term  baptizo,  they  so  rendered  it,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  practice  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
See  preface  to  old  English  editions  of  the  received 
version. 

The  Doctor  seems  to  be  reluctant  to  let  his  readers 
rfven  have  one  peep  into  the  Greek  language,     If  they 


56 

could  but  learn  the  alphabet,  and  refer  to  any  Lex- 
icon in  the  Doctor's  library,  they  would  see  that 
the  Greek  word  for  sprinkle  is  rantizo,  and  that  the 
Greek  word  baptizo  means  immersion,  and  nothing 
else.  Sometimes  Lexicographers  take  license,  and 
put  the  effect  of  dipping  some  three  or  four  re- 
moves from  the  primary  radical  definition.  In  do- 
ing this  the  word  wash  is  used  ;  which  always  implies 
the  dipping  of  the  person,  hands,  cups,  or  other  things 
spoken  of. 

The  time  is  fast  passing  away  in  which  the  people 
will  be  satisfied  to  take  their  instructions  at  the  lips  of 
the  minister,  without  reference  to  the  word  of  God, 
especially  among  Protestants.  Without  acquaintance 
with  the  original  language,  the  intelligent  reader  will 
naturally  ask,  whether  the  Greeks  themselves  under- 
stand the  word  baptizo  to  mean,  to  pour  or  sprinkle  ? 
It  is  easy  to  satisfy  this  inquiry  by  the  most  satisfactory 
testimony. 

Sir  P.  Ricault  says  that  the  "  Greek  church  holds 
plunging  to  be  as  necessary  to  baptism  as  water  is  to 
the  matter."  Present  state  of  the  Greek  Church, 
page   163. 

Dr.  G.  King — The  Greek  church  uniformly  prac- 
tices immersion,  undoubtedly  the  most  primitive  man- 
ner. Rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Greek  Church  in 
Russia,  p.  192. 

Dr.  Wall — The  Greek  church,  in  all  the  branches 
of  it,  does  still  use  immersion.  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  v.  II, 
p.  376,  ed.  3. 

In  the  April  number  of  the  Baptist  Miss.  Magazine 
for  1841,  there  is  an  account  of  the  conversion  of  a 
native  Greek,  who  expresses  his  views  upon  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  in  which  he  affirms  the  same  things, 


57 

viz  :  That  the  Greek  church  had  no  other  view  of 
baptizo  than  dipping,  and  that  they  had  from  the  first, 
immersed  the  subject. 

The  next  passage  the  Doctor  examines  is  the  allu- 
sion Paul  makes  to  the  ordinance  in  1  Cor.  x,  1,  2. 
"  Brethren,  I  would  not  thai  you  should  be  ignorant, 
how  that  all  of  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptised  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  "  They  were 
under  the  cloud  and  passed  through  tho  sea."  This 
exactly  agrees  with  the  history,  Ex.  xiv,  29.  See 
also  Ex.  xiii,  21,  22,  and  xiv/l9 — 22.  "  And  were 
all  baptised  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
The  sea  stood  in  walls  on  either  side,  and  the  cloud 
was  over  them,  between  them  and  the  Egyptians,  so 
that  they  were  buried  from  the  sight  of  their  enemies, 
"  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  And  they  walked 
"  upon  the  dry  ground."  So  that  while  they  were 
"  baptised  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,"  they  were  not 
so  much  as  sprinkled  with  water.  Very  unfortunately 
for  the  Doctor,  the  cloud  was  a  pillar  of  fire,  and  had 
not,  therefore,  so  much  as  one  drop  to  sprinkle  upon 
the  Israelites,  Ex.  xiii,  21.  The  Doctor  knew  that  no 
one  contended,  contrary  to  the  declaration  of  Paul,  that 
they  were  "  baptised  in  the  Red  sea,"  in  the  literal 
sense  of  New  Testament  baptism.  And  no  apology 
can  be  found  for  the  insinuation,  except  it  be  that  the 
Doctor  has  no  fair  argument  for  rantism  in  the  word  of 
God,  and  is  obliged  to  resort  to  the  trick  of  misrepre- 
sentation. I  might  adduce  many  Psedobaptist  author- 
ities in  favor  of  my  interpretation.  One  will  suffice. 
Witsius.  On  the  Cov.  Lib.  iv,  chap.  10,  §  11,  says 
that  the  Apostle  used  the  term  "baptism"  in  a  "figu- 
rative sense"     "  The  cloud  hung  over  their  heads,  and 


58 

the  sea  surrounded  them  on  each  side  ;  and  so  the 
water  in  regard  to  those  that  are  baptised." 

The  Doctor  proceeds  in  the  next  place,  to  find  some 
rantisms,  from  the  Jewish  custom  of  washing  hands, 
cups,  and  couches.  The  first  passage  the  Doctor 
quotes  he  misapplies.  The  Pharisees  did  not  refer,  in 
what  they  said  of  our  Lord,  to  a  rite  of  purification,  but 
merely  of  a  custom  among  the  Jews,  of  washing  hands 
before  dinner.  And,  it  is  sufficient  for  us  to  say,  in 
reply,  that  the  Doctor  washes  his  hands  by  immersion. 
No  one  thinks  it  necessary  to  immerse  his  body  in  or- 
der to  wash  his  hands.  In  the  second  quotation,  Matt. 
xv,  2.  They  wash  not  their  hands,  etc.,  the  Doctor 
was  careful  not  to  let  his  readers  know  that  the  Greek 
word  is  nipsontai,  and  not  baqtizo.  Many  of  the  most 
learned  Paedobaptist  writers,  assert  that  there  were 
two  sorts  of  washing  of  hands  referred  to,  one  by  pour- 
(nipsontai)  the  other  by  dipping,  {baptizontai) .  Dr. 
G.  Campbell,  says,  "For  illustrating  this  passage,  let 
it  be  observed,  first,  that  the  two  verbs,  rendered  wash, 
in  the  English  translation,  are  different  in  the  original. 
The  first  is  nipsontai,  properly  translated  wash;  the 
second  is  baptizontai,  which  limits  us  to  a  particular 
mode  of  washing ;  for  baptizo  denotes  to  plunge  or  dip." 
Accordingly  he  translates  the  passage,  "  For  the 
Pharisees  eat  not  until  they  have  washed  their  hands, 
by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them,  and  if  they  come 
from  market,  by  dipping  them." 

The  custom  of  dipping  pots,  vessels,  and  couches  is 
thus  described  by  the  Jewish  writer,  Maimonides,  "  In 
a  laver  which  holds  forty  seahs  of  water,  they  dip  all 
unclean  vessels.  A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips 
it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure." 

The  case  of  "divers  baptisms"  in  the  Jewish  service, 


59 

includes  the  bathing  of  the  Priests,  and  cleansing  of 
vessels,  etc.  While  the  sprinklings  or  rantisms  of 
which  the  apostle  speaks,  refers  to  the  ceremony  of 
setting  apart  persons  and  things  from  a  common  to  a 
sacred  use.  JJut  the  words  are  never  interchanged  in 
reference  to  the  customs  and  ceremonies  designated. 
Rantizo  is  never  rendered  baptism,  nor  washing  ;  nor 
is  bajitizo  ever  rendered  sprinkling,  or  applied  to  the 
sprinkling  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  worship. 

On  p.  93,  the  Doctor  refers  to  the  symbolical  import 
of  the  ordinance.  Peter  anticipates  him,  and  says, 
that  "it  is  not  the  washing  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward 
God,  by  faith  in  the  (death  and)  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  We  are  said  to  be  washed  from  our  scarlet 
colored  sins,  to  receive  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
wash  away  our  sins  by  baptism,  as  in  the  case  of 
Paul,  etc.  A  fountain  is  opened  in  the  house  of  David 
for  sin  and  uncleanness  ;  "  and  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  from  all  sin."  We,  by  bap- 
tism, profess  that  we  have  received  the  cleansing  effi- 
cacy of  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and  others  see  in  the  or- 
dinance, the  symbol  of  the  spiritual  bathing  in  the  Wood 
of  salvation  flowing  from  the  Saviour's  side.  It  is  also 
emblematic  of  our  death  unto  sin,  and  resurrection  un- 
to spiritual  life.  "We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  bap- 
tism," like  as  he  was  raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  should  we  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
Rom.  vi,  4. 

Etymological  view  of  the  word  Baptizo. 

It  is  only  neccessary  on  this  point,  for  me  to  say, 
that  universally,  both  in  classic  and  sacred  authors, 
the  word  baptizo  ( baptise )is  rendered  immerse,  or  con- 


60 

strued  in  accordance  with  that  definition.  Paedobap- 
tist  authors  shall  furnish  the  proof,  whose  inconsistency 
I  leave  the  Doctor  to  reconcile. 

From  the  numerous  Lexicographers,  I  shall  only  re- 
fer to  Robinson's  Lexicon,  which  is  the  standard  work 
in  sacred  interpretation  ;  and  Donnegan's  Lexicon,  the 
standard  work  in  classic  study.  I  begin  with  Robin- 
son.    Article  Baptism. 

Baptizo — to  submerge,  sink. 

Baptisma — what  is  immersed. 

Baptismos — baptism,  immersion  ;  spoken  of  the  re- 
ligious rite  instituted  by  Christ. 

Bapto — to  dip  in,  to  immerse. 

Donnegan  renders  the  word  thus: 

Baptizo — to  immerse,  submerge,  saturate. 

Baptisma — an  object  immersed,  submerged. 

Baptos — immersed,  dyed,  drawn  out. 

Bapto — to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water,  wash,  dye. 

I  now  bring  forward  a  few  out  of  hundreds  of  Pee- 
dobaptists,  who  contradict  their  own  practices.  Thus, 
they  write  their  own  condemnation,  for,  the  Doctor 
says,  the   "  command  ought  to  be  obeyed." 

Calvin.  "The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and 
the  rite  of  immersion  was  observed  by  the  ancient 
church."  Institutes  lib.  v.  chap,  xv,  §2. 

Luther.  "  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may  be 
translated  immersion,  as  when  they  immerse  some- 
thing in  water  that  it  may  be  wholly  covered.  And 
although  it  is  almost  wholly  abolished,  (for  they  do  not 
dip  the  whole  children,  but  only  pour  a  little  water  on 
them)  they  ought,  nevertheless  to  be  wholly  immersed, 
and  then  immediately  drawn  out ;  for  that  the  etymo- 
logy of  the  word  seems  to  demand."  The  Germans  call 
baptism  tauff,  from  a  depth,  which  in  their  language 


61 

they  call  teeff,  because  it  is  proper  that  those  who  are 
baptised  be  deeply  immersed."  Luth.  Op.  vol.  i,  page 
336. 

Vitringa.  "  The  act  of  baptising  is  the  immersion 
of  believers  in  water.  This  expresses  the  force  of  the 
word.  Thus  also,  it  was  performed  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,"  Aphor.  Sanct.  Theol.  Aphoris.  884. 

Hospinianus.  "Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptised; 
by  which  word  it  is  certain  immersion  is  signified," 
His.  Sacram.  L.  II.  C.  i,  page  30. 

Gurtlerus.  "  To  baptise,  among  the  Greeks,  is  un- 
doubtedly to  immerse,  to  dip  ;  and  baptism  is  immer- 
sion, dipping.  Baptismos  en  Pneumati  agio,  baptism  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  is  immersion  into  the  waters  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  :  for  he  on  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  is  poured 
out,  is,  as  it  were,  immersed  into  him.  Baptismos  en 
purl,  'baptism  in  fire,''  is  a  figurative  expression,  and 
signifies  casting  into  a  flame,  which,  like  water,  flows 
far  and  wide  ;  such  as  the  flame  that  consumed  Jeru- 
salem. The  thing  commanded  by  our  Lord,  is  bap- 
tism— immersion  into  water,"  Inst.  Theo.  cap.  xxxiii, 
§108,  109,  110,  115. 

Buddeus.  "  The  words  baptizein  and  baptismos,  are 
not  to  be  interpreted  of  aspersions,  but  always  of  im- 
mersion," Theol.  Dogmat.  L.  V.  C.  i,  §5. 

Salmasius.  "Baptism  is  immersion,  and  was  admin- 
istered in  former  times,  according  to  the  force  and 
meaning  of  the  word,"  De  Caesarie  Virorum,  p.  669. 

Venema.  "  The  word  baptizein,  to  baptise,  is  no- 
where used  in  the  Scripture  for  sprinklmg,"  Inst. 
Hist.  Eccl.  Vet.  et.  Vov.  Test.  Tom.  III.  gee.  i,  §133. 

Extracts  from  German  writers  of  the  age  of  the  Re- 
formation, and  a  few  years  subsequent,  might  be  great- 
ly multiplied,  but  it  would  be  superfluous. 


Professor  Fritche,  a  disciple  of  Hermann,  in  his 
Com.  on  Matt,  iii,  6,  says:  "That  baptism  was  per- 
formed not  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion  is  evident, 
not  only /row  the  nature  of  the  word,  but  from  Romans, 
ri.  4." 

August!,  vol.  v.  p.  b.  '*  The  word  baptism,  accord- 
ing to  etymology  and  usage,  signifies  to  immerse,  sub- 
merge, etc.,  and  the  choice  of  the  expression  betrays  an 
age  in  which  the  latter  custom  of  sprinkling  had  not  been 
introduced." 

Brenner,  p.  1.  "The  word  corresponds  in  signifi- 
cation with  the  German  word  tauffen,  to  sink  into  the 


The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  respecting  Baptism, 
Leipsic,  1802.  "  Baptism  is  perfectly  identical  with  our 
word  immersion  or  submersion  (tauchen  oder  unter- 
tauchen.)  If  immersion  under  water  is  for  the  purpose 
of  cleansing,  or  washing,  then  the  word  means  cleans- 
ing or  washing,"  page  7. 

Bretschneider,  in  his  Theology  of  1828,  vol.  ii,  p. 
673  and  981.  "An  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  na- 
ture of  baptism." — "This  is  the  meaning  of  the  toord.'* 
This  writer  is  confessedly  the  most  critical  Lexicogra- 
pher of  the  New  Testament. 

Paullus,  in  his  Com.,  vol.  i,  p.  278,  says,  the  word 
baptise  signifies,  in  Greek,  sometimes  to  immerse,  some- 
times to  submerge." 

Rheixhard's  Ethics,  vol.  v,  p.  79.  "  In  sprinkling, 
the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  ordinance  is  wholly 
tost." 

"Professor  Rost,  the  principal  Greek  lexicographer 
now  living,  in  his  standard  German- Greek  Lexicon  re- 
vised with  the  assistance  of  a  native  Greek,  puts  down 
as  the  primary  signification  of  all  such  words  vls  plunge, 


63 

immerse  and  submerse  (tauchen,  eintaucken,  untertauck- 
en  (bapto  ;  but  under  the  words  wash,  wet,  pour,  and 
the  like)  waschen,  benetzen,  giesen,begiesen.)  though  he 
gives  copious  definitions  in  Greek,  he  never  employs 
the  word  bapto,  or  any  of  its  derivatives.  Can  any- 
thing be  more  to  the  point  V  Christian  "Review,  vol. 
iii,  p.  97. 

Sceileusner,  in  his  Lex.  on  baptisma.  ''Those  who 
were  to  be  baptised  were  anciently  immersed."  Indeed 
the  three  New  Testament  lexicographers,  Schleusner, 
Wahl  and  Bretschnider,  limit  baptism  as  a  sacred  or- 
dinance to  immersion. 

Schoix,  on  Matt,  iii,  6.  "Baptism  consists  in  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  in  water." 

Professor  Lange,  on  Infant  Baptism,  of  1834,  p.  81. 
"  Baptism  in  the  apostolic  age  was  a  proper  baptism— 
the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water — >"  As  Christ  died 
so  we  die  (to  sin)  with  him  in  baptism.  The  body  is, 
as  it  were,  buried  under  water,  is  dead  with  Christ ; 
the  plunging  under  water  represents  death,  and  rising 
out  of  it  the  resurrection  of  a  new  life.  A  more  strik- 
ing symbol  could  not  be  chosen." 

The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  on  baptism,  p.  36. 
"  The  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the  apostles  were 
performed  in  precisely  the  same  way,"  i.  e.  the  candi- 
date was  completely  immersed  under  water.  Speaking 
of  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  Gal  iii,  27,  he  says  "What  becomes 
of  all  these  beautiful  images,  when,  as  at  the  present 
day,  baptism  is  administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling?" 

Rosenmuller,  Koppe  and  Bloomfield,  all  hold  the 
same  strong  language  on  this  subject.  We  will  quote 
only  the  last,  as  he  includes  the  others.  In  his  Criti- 
cal Digest  on  Rom.  vi,  4,  he  said,  "  There  is  here 
plainly  a  reference  to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by 


64 

immersion  ;  and  I  agree  with  Hoppe  and  Rosenmuller, 
that  there  is  reason  to  regret  it  should  have  been  aban- 
doned in  most  Christian  churches,  especially,  as  it  has 
so  evidently  a  reference  to  the  mystic  sense  of  bap- 
tism. 

Waddington.  in  his  Ch.  Hist.  p.  27,  calls  "immer- 
sion, the  oldest  form  of  baptism." 

Bretcshneider  : — '•  In  the  word  baptizo,  and  bap- 
tisma  is  contained  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion 
under  water  ;  at  least  so  is  baptisma  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament,"  Theol.  Leipsic,  1330,  vol.  ii,  p.  681. 

"Rheinhard  rightly  says,  that  baptismos  may  also 
signify  every  common  purification,  but  baptisma  is 
used  only  at  religious  immersion." 

Dr.  Cave.  "  The  party  to  be  baptised  was  wholly 
immersed,  or  put  under  water,  whereby  they  did  more 
notably  and  significantly  express  the  three  great  ends 
and  effects  of  baptism." 

Dr.  Johnson,  when  arguing  with  a  friend,  in  palia- 
tion  of  the  Romish  innovation,  to  which  Dr.  Whitby 
alludes  (that  of  taking  the  cup  from  the  laity,)  ob- 
served :  "They  may  think  that  in  what  is  merely  rit- 
ual, deviations  from  the  primitive  mode  may  be  admit- 
ted on  the  ground  of  convenience ;  and  I  think  they 
are  as  well  warranted  to  make  this  alteration  as  we  are 
to  substitute  sprinkling  in  the  room  of  the  ancient  bap- 
tism. 

Dr.  Chalmers,  when  commenting  on  the  passage  in 
the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans,  in  which  the  expression 
occurs,  "buried  with  him  by  baptism,"  observes,  "the 
original  meaning  of  the  word  baptism  is  immersion  ; 
and  though  Ave  regard  it  as  a  point  of  indifference 
whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in  this 
way,  or  by  sprinkling  ;  yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  pre- 


65 

valent  style  of  the  administration  in  the  apostle's  days, 
was  by  an  actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under 
water." 

Edinburgh  Ency.  "In  the  time  of  the  apostles,  the 
form  of  baptism  was  very  simple.  The  person  to  be 
baptised  was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel,  with  the 
words  which  Christ  had  ordered,  and  to  express  more 
fully  his  change  of  character,  generally  assumed  a  new 
name.  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  was  omitted 
only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  who  could  not  leave  their 
beds.  In  this  case  sprinkling  was  substituted,  which 
was  called  clinic  baptism.  The  Greek  church,  as  well 
as  the  schismatics,  in  the  East,  retained  the  custom  of 
immersing  the  whole  body  ;  but  the  Western  church 
adopted,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism by  sprinkling,  which  has  been  continued  by  the 
Protestants,  Baptists  only  excepted." 

Circumstantial  Evidence  Examined. 

The  Doctor  seems  determined  to  destroy  the  insti tui- 
tion of  baptism  by  pleading  for  a  mode  of  rantism. 
We  have  seen  that  neither  precept  nor  example  can  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  for  an  ordinance  of  rantism  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  it  is  opposed  to  reason 
and  common  sense  to  apply  a  mode  of  one  action,  to 
the  performance  of  another.  In  the  next  place,  the 
attendant  circumstances  of  baptism  are  brought  for- 
ward, and  the  history  of  them  construed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  favor  rantism,  if  possible.  On  page  94,  the  Doc- 
tor refers  to  the  baptism  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  the  word 
were  baptised,  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand."  Now  the  historian 
does  not  say  they  were  baptised  on  thai  day.    He  only 


66 

asserts  that  such  as  gladly  received  the  word,  on  that 
occasion,  were  baptised.  Nine-tenths  of  the  three 
thousand  added  to  the  church  on  that  day,  may  have 
been  of  the  multitude  whom  John  and  the  Apostles 
had  previously  baptised  in  Jordan.  But  supposing 
they  were  all  baptised  on  that  day.  If  the  work  were 
divided  between  the  seventy  disciples  and  twelve 
Apostles  of  our  Lord,  there  would  have  been  less  than 
forty  for  each  administrator.  And  the  writer  of  this 
has,  on  several  occasions,  with  the  assistance  of  a 
deacon,  baptised  two  in  a  minute.  In  twenty  minutes, 
therefore,  the  whole  number  could  have  been  baptised. 
The  warm  hearted  converts  who  afterwards  were  wil- 
ling to  suffer  the  confiscation  of  all  their  goods,  or  lay 
them  at  the  Apostle's  feet  to  be  distributed  among  the 
needy,  were  of  course  ready  to  supply  those  who  need- 
ed assistance  with  a  change  of  apparel.  Nor  would 
the  disciples  be  prohibited  the  privilege  of  immersing 
in  the  pools,  for  the  citizens  were  struck  dumb  with 
the  majestic  display  of  God's  power  and  grace.  In 
regard  to  polluting  the  pools,  Josephus  attributes  the 
healing  virtues  of  the  waters  of  Bethesda,  to  the  en- 
trails of  animals  brought  to  the  sheep  market  near  by 
this  pool.  Besides,  it  is  evident  from  history,  and  the 
five  porches  or  dressing  rooms  constructed  upon  the 
verge  of  this  pool,  that  the  principal  object  of  it  was 
to  afford  facilities  for  bathing.  The  size  of  the  pool  of 
Bethesda,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  Siloe  and  Rogel, 
was  sufficient  for  the  immersion  of  the  three  thousand, 
the  administrators  standing  four  feet  apart.  Chateau- 
briand, who  visited  Jerusalem  about  thirty  years  ago, 
says  that  it  measures  three  hundred  and  eighty  feet 
around.  Maundrell,  that  it  was  one  hundred  and 
twenty  paces  long,  and  forty  broad,  and  eight  feet  in 


67 

the  deepest  place.  See  Calmet's  Dictionary,  or  Dr. 
Clark  on  2  Chron.  xxxii,  30  ;  Is.  xxii,  9  ;  and  John 
ix,  7  ;  and  Dr.  Gill  on  Acts  ii,  41.  In  regard  to  Ke- 
dron,  but  fifty-one  days  before,  the  Saviour  crossed 
the  brook  with  his  disciples  to  Gethsemane.  It  was  not 
a  dry  valley  at  that  time.  And  it  was  fed  by  those 
never  failing  fountains  flowing  from  Mount  Moriah, 
which  secured  to  the  land  the  praise  of  being  "  well 
watered,"  and  ''flowing  with  milk  and  honey." 

We  have  seen  that,  on  that  day,  the  followers  of 
Christ  were  baptised  in  the  Holy  Ghost — the  whole 
house  being  filled  with  the  Divine  inf  uence,  where 
they  were  sitting  ;  and  that  none  were  baptised  except 
those  who  "gladly  received  the  word."  Rantism,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Wall,  was  not  practiced  until  thirteen 
hundred  years  after  this  time,  and  then  only  by  those 
who  submitted  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope  of  Rome. 
See  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  v.  ii,  page  376. 
On  the  baptism  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  only  necessary  fur- 
ther to  say,  that  no  historian  thinks  of  describing  the 
attendant  circumstances  of  any  given  custom  or  rite, 
in  their  minutia,  every  time  he  refers  to  it.  He  only 
deems  it  necessary  to  name  it,  as  he  sees  it,  after  he 
has  once  or  twice  particularly  described  the  scene. 

The  case  of  the  jailor  is  next  brought  forward.  The 
Doctor  is  very  much  tried  for  methods  of  shifting  from 
the  force  of  history.  "  They  were  in  the  prison,"  the 
Doctor  says.  Luke  says  they  were  brought  out,  verse 
30.  And  then,  that  they  spake  in  the  house,  verse 
32.  And,  then,  that  the  jailor  took  them,  and  washed 
their  stripes,  and  was  baptised,  he  and  all  his  strait- 
way.  And,  then,  verse  34,  when  he  had  brought  them 
into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them.  Now,  it 
must  be  plain  to  any  one  who  will  see,  that  Paul  and 


68 

Silas  were  taken  out  of  the  prison,  into  the  house  ; 
then  taken  away  from  the  house,  to  have  their  lacerated 
backs  washed,  and  to  baptise  the  believing  household  ; 
and  then  brought  into  the  house  after  the  baptism  was 
performed.  Add  to  this  what  is  said  in  verse  13,  and 
you  have  all  the  principal  attendant  circumstances  of 
immersion,  and  the  facilities  in  addition.  There  was 
the  river  Strymon,  and  they  went  out  of  the  house  to 
baptise,  and  returned  to  the  house,  after  they  had 
obeyed  the  Saviour,  and  the  household  had  imitated 
his  example.  Can  a  matter  be  more  plain,  where  the 
ordinance  is  not  particularly  described  ?  The  Doctor 
says,  page  98,  that  they  were  still  in  prison.  This  is 
a  flat  contradiction  of  the  sacred  historian,  who  says 
they  were  taken  out,  verse  30,  and  afterwards  taken 
from  the  house  to  baptise.  That  they  went  into  the 
prison  again  is  freely  admitted  ;  but  that  did  not 
change,  or  destroy  the  previous  facts  recorded  of  them. 

Let  the  reader  take  Pittsburgh,  and  apply  the  nar- 
ration of  facts  in  Philippi,  to  the  jail  and  the  river  in 
this  city  ;  and  see  how  easily  the  whole  can  be  under- 
stood of  the  immersion  of  the  jailor's  family  in  the 
city  of  Philippi.  Here,  the  river  is  only  a  few  hun- 
dred yards  from  the  prison.  And  we  may  rationally 
suppose  that  the  distance  was  not  greater  in  Philippi. 

John's  baptism,  "  in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because 
there  was  much  water  there,"  is  the  next  case  intro- 
duced. And  here  the  Doctor  makes  sad  work  with 
the  sacred  record.  His  paraphrase  would  seem  to 
purport  that  John  baptised  where  there  was  much  wa- 
ter, to  keep  the  people  from  dying  with  thirst.  The 
much  water  Avas  to  drink,  according  to  his  view.  John 
and  the  multitude  came  to  Enon  to  drink,  because 
there   was  much  water  there !     This   sage   criticism 


69 

would  not  look  so  bad,  if  it  could  be  made  appear  that 
the  object  of  John's  mission  was  to  lead  the  people 
about  from  one  drinking  place  to  another,  to  keep  them 
from  being  "  exposed  to  imminent  danger  of  perishing 
in  consequence  of  thirst !"  The  Doctor  becomes  elo- 
quent here,  and  seems  to  say  that  any  other  view  has 
as  little  foundation  as  "the  baseless  fabric  of  a 
dream."  John  Calvin  says  that  "  from  these  words, 
John  iii,  10,  it  may  be  inferred,  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  John  and  Christ,  by  plunging  the  whole 
body  in  water."     In.  Loc. 

While  he  dreams  of  rantising  upon  the  base  he  has 
laid  in  his  remarkable  exposition,  I  take  my  stand  on 
the  immutable  testimony  of  God,  that  "John  was  bap- 
tising in  Enon,  near  Salim,  because  there  was  much 
water  there." 

The  next  paragraph,  is  "based"  upon  a  quibble  as 
puerile,  as  the  former  supposition  is  destitute  of  sup- 
port. Who  ever  supposed,  far  less  maintained,  that 
when  it  is  said  that  John  baptised  in  Enon,  that  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance,  bears  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  village,  that  it  does  to  the  element  or  river 
into  which  the  candidates  were  plunged  ?  There  would 
be  perfect  propriety  in  saying,  that  I  baptize  in  Pitts- 
burgh, in  the  river  Monongahela.  In  the  first  part  of 
the  phrase,  in  Pittsburgh,  it  is  distinguished  from  all 
other  cities  and  towns  ;  and  in  the  second,  the  river 
designated,  in  which  the  persons  are  baptised.  What 
law  of  language  is  violated  ?  Suppose  the  Doctor's 
favorite  rendering  of  the  Greek  word  en  were  adopt- 
ed, and  his  practice  of  rantism  were  described,  then 
we  should  have  it  thus  :  He  rantised  the  children  with 
Pittsburgh  !  John  baptised  with  Enon  !  When  we 
allow  the    Holy  Spirit   to  narrate,   all  is  intelligible. 


70 

John  baptised  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  in  the  river 
Jordan.  And  not  in  the  wilderness  of  Egypt,  nor  in 
the  river  Nile.  If  we  were  to  substitute  with  for  in, 
it  would  read  thus  :  and  the  ''people  were  baptised 
of  him  with  the  river  of  Jordan."  This  would  be  non- 
sense. We  are  confirmed,  therefore,  in  the  conclu- 
sion, that  the  baptism  was  performed  in  the  river 
Jordan. 

It  is  moreover  affirmed  by  the  evangelists  that 
Christ  came  up  straightway  out  of  the  water  after 
he  had  been  baptised.  A  circumstance  always  attend- 
ant on  baptism  ;  but  never  accompanying  rantism,  or 
sprinkling.  And  who  ever  read  of  cups,  bowls,  or 
basins,  in  connection  with  primitive  baptisms  ?  Glad- 
ly would  the  humble  forerunner  of  our  Lord  have  car- 
ried a  basin  of  water  from  the  river  or  elsewhere,  to 
have  served  the  purpose  of  rantism,  if  such  had  been 
the  will  of  the  Redeemer.  But,  no  !  the  lowly  Lamb 
of  God,  more  humble  than  his  professed  followers, 
went  into  the  river,  and  set  us  an  example  that  we 
should  follow  his  steps,  saying,  "  Thus,  it  become Lh 
us  to  fulfill  all  righteousness  !"  The  Eternal  Father, 
and  the  Holy  Comforter,  approved  the  sacred  institu- 
tion, which  Doctors  of  Divinity  try  to  explain  away, 
and  supercede  by  a  human  invention  ! 

The  case  of  the  Eunuch  is  next  referred  to.  I 
should  think  that  there  could  not  possibly  be  any  dif- 
ficulty in  understanding  the  nature  of  the  ordinance 
from  the  circumstances  here  narrated.  But,  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  the  object  of  the  Doctor  to  let  plain 
truth  on  this  subject  have  its  effect  upon  those  who 
are  under  the  influence  of  his  instructions.  He  evi- 
dently labors  to  obscure  its  light,  and  blunt  its  edge, 
by  a  multitude  of  words,  which,  taken  as  rules  of  in- 


71 

terpretation,  are  without  wisdom.  For,  if  the  parti- 
tides  en  and  eis,  are  to  be  interpreted  contrary  to  the 
force  of  the  verb  and  the  context,  then  there  is  no 
marvel  why  Daniel  was  not  eaten  by  the  lions.  Upon 
the  Doctor's  principle,  he  was  only  taken  to  the  door 
of  the  den  ! 

And  although  our  Lord  says  the  righteous  shall 
enter  eis  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet  they  may 
only  arrive  at  the  gate,  if  the  Doctor's  principle  of  in- 
terpretation prevail  !  But  how  plain  the  passage : 
"  They  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch,  and  he  baptised  (  not  rantised  )  him."  Now, 
first,  we  see  Philip  and  the  distinguished  stranger  de- 
scending from  the  chariot,  and  going  down  into  the 
water  ;  then  Philip  baptised  him  according  to  the  law 
in  Math,  xxviii,  and  Mark  xvi,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  and  when  they  were 
come  up  out  of  the  water,  etc.,  he  went  on  his  way 
rejoicing.  The  passage  quoted  from  Is.  lii,  was  not 
the  passage  the  Eunuch  was  reading.  The  passage  is 
quoted  by  Luke  from  the  liii.  chapter  of  that  prophet. 
Besides,  the  Hebrew  word  rendered  "  sprinkle,"  in 
the  verse  referred  to,  is  almost  invariably  translated 
elsewhere  by  astonish.  And  the  prophecy  evidently 
means  that  Christ  should  astonish  the  nations  by  the 
greatness  of  his  condescension,  the  disinterestedness  of 
his  love,  the  power  of  his  miracles,  the  purity  of  his 
doctrines,  the  intensity  of  his  voluntary  sufferings,  the 
triumph  of  his  resurrection,  and  especially  by  the 
achievements  of  his  grace,  as  the  reward  of  his  victory 
over  death,  hell,  and  the  grave. 

In  keeping  the  commands  of  God  there  is  great 
reward ;  and  the  Eunuch,  who  entered  into  the  mar- 
velous— astonishing  light  of  the  above  truths,  willingly 


72 

submitted  to  the  Divinely  appointed  ordinance,  and 
went  on  his  way  rejoicing.  May  all  who  believe  in 
the  Son  of  God,  follow  him,  as  he  also  followed 
Christ  ! 

On  Rom.  vi,  4,  the  Doctor  follows  closely  in  the 
track  of  Doctor  Woods,  of  Andover,  and  with  him  fails 
to  destroy  the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  that 
and  parallel  passages.  Unluckily  for  the  Doctor,  the 
"sound,''"  "meaning,"  and  everything  else,  in  the 
verse  and  context,  are  against  the  practice  of  rantism. 
"We  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism,"  etc.  It  is 
not  said  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  dying  unto 
sin,  or  being  sacrificed  to  the  world,  or  by  believing 
in  Christ;  but  "  by  baptism"  Without  a  perversion 
of  Paul's  meaning,  no  criticism  can  destroy  the  force 
of  this  proof  for  immersion.  Paul  introduced  it  as  it 
was  in  the  days  of  primitive  Christianity,  when  it  was 
yet  unmutilated  by  the  hand  of  man.  It  was  at  that 
time,  illustrative  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  because  the  resemblance  was  striking.  The 
Doctor  attempts  to  detect  some  dissimilarity  between 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the  burial  of  Christ, 
But,  if  he  were  as  effectually  buried  in  a  watery  grave, 
as  Christ  was  buried  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph,  when  tho 
Stone  closed  the  door,  I  should  take  him  by  the  hand, 
as  an  obedient  disciple  of  the  Redeemer,  buried  with 
him  by  baptism,  in  affectionate  commemoration  of  the 
Saviour's  death  and  resurrection  ;  and  in  evidence  to 
others  that  he  determined  no  longer  to  "  make  void 
the  commands  of  God,  by  the  traditions  of  men." 

The  similarity  between  the  loaf  and  the  body  of 
Christ  is  no  more  striking.  The  wafer  and  rantism  are 
on  a  par  in  this  respect. 

Anxious  to  find  some  shadow  of  proof  for  sprinkling, 


73 

the  Doctor  refers  on  page  113  and  114  to  the  sprink- 
lings connected  with  the  Jewish  worship.  All  read- 
ily admit  that  there  were  typical  sprinklings,  as  well 
as  immersions,  under  that  dispensation.  But  this  by 
no  means  proves  that  there  is  a  figurative  rantism  or 
sprinkling  instituted  by  the  Head  of  the  church,  in  this 
dispensation.  There  are  but  two  ordinances  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  Saviour ;  and  these  are  positive  com- 
mands— not  to  be  mutilated  in  the  least  by  us,  but  to 
be  implicitly  obeyed. 

When  the  blood  of  Christ  is  called  the  blood  of 
sprinkling,  it  is  in  allusion  to  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifices  in  the  Jewish  worship  ;  but,  in- 
stead of  the  word  baptism  being  used,  in  the  Greek,  it 
is  invariably  the  word  rantism.  Let  not  any  one  who 
rantiscs,  therefore,  pretend  to  act  under  the  commis- 
sion of  our  Lord,  which  commands  the  minister  to 
baptise.  Let  those  at  once  acknowledge  they  rantise 
under  the  authority  of  the  church  of  Rome,  who  are 
determined  not  to  be  governed  by  the  law  of  God  and 
example  of  Christ.  To  those  who  are  willing,  in  the 
day  of  God's  power,  His  yoke  is  easy  and  His  burden 
is  light.  By  such  submission  to  their  Lord  and  Mas- 
ter, they  testify  their  love  to  him  who  first  loved  them  ; 
and  shed  a  light  upon  those  who  look  upon  the  order 
of  God's  house,  that  they  may  see  their  good  works, 
and  also  glorify  their  Father  in  heaven.  May  every 
branch  of  Zion  exhibit  the  light  of  truth  to  a  world  of 
darkness,  as  it  shone  in  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  when 
Christianity  was  in  its  pristine  purity,  and  when 
the  church  in  its  primitive  splendor  was  emphatically 

a    LIGHT    TO    THE   WORLD  ! 


A  BAPTISMAL  CATECHISM. 


This  condensed  form  of  presenting  the  argument  is 
well  adapted  to  those  who  have  been  trained  in  the 
shorter  Catechism. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE   PROPER   SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

Q.  By  whom  was  Christian  Baptism  instituted  ? 

A.  "By  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  Lawgiver 
in  "  Zion,  in  his  ratification  of  John's  Baptism,  and  in 
the  Commission,  Matt.  28,  and  Mark  16  ;  (not  by 
Moses  in  the  law  of  circumcision.) 

Q.  What  does  Baptism  signify  ? 

A.  It  is  the  emblem  of  our  spiritual  cleansing,  and 
death  unto  sin,  as  washing  is  an  effect  of  dipping  in 
water  and  not  of  sprinkling,  Acts  xxii,  16. 

Q.   Can  baptism  cleanse  from  sin  ? 

A.  It  cannot.  The  blood  of  Christ  alone  cleanseth 
from  all  sin. 

Q.  Of  what,  then,  is  Baptism  the  sign  ? 

A.  It  has  no  internal  nor  external  sign,  but  is  itself 
the  divinely  appointed  sign  of  an  internal  work  of  grace, 


76 

such  as  Paul  had  before  his  baptism  by  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  by  virtue  of  the  faith  of 
his  parents. 

Q.  In  whose  name  are  we  baptised  ? 

A.  In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  Matt,  sxviii,  19. 

Q,  What  important  Doctrine  are  we  taught  by  the 
command  of  Christ  to  baptise  in  the  name  of  the  Father 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  ? 

A.  That  each  of  these  is  a  Divine  person,  being  one 
in  name,  and  equal  in  authority  and  glory. 

Q.  Who  are  the  scriptural  subjects  of  New  Testa- 
ment baptism  ? 

A.  Believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  the 
children  of  believers,  Matt,  iii,  8,  9  ;  xxviii,  19  ;  Maik 
Xri,  16. 

Q,  What  is  the  point  in  dispute  Willi  regard  to  the 
subjects  of  Baptism  ? 

A.  It  is  whether  believers  are  the  proper  and  only 
subjects  of  baptism.  It  is  well  known  that  there  are 
no  believing  subjects  baptised  in  Italy  and  other  coun- 
tries where  the  corruption  prevails  under  the  control  of 
the  Man  of  sin,  who  "changes  times,  and  seasons,  and 
"  Laws.1' 

Q.  Is  it  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Ptedopaptists,  as  well 
as  the  Baptists  ? 

A.  It  is  so  expressed  in  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  faith.  But  observation  proves  that  Christ's  law,  re- 
quiring the  believing  subject,  is  superceded  and  made 
void  by  the  commandments  of  men." 

Q.  What,  then,  is  the  point  of  difference  between 
Us? 

A.  It  is  simply  whether  Christ's  Law  is  to  be  obey- 
ed implicitly,  or  whether  men  have  a  right  to  super- 


77 

cede  that  law,  and  bring  other  subjects  to  the  sacred 
ordinance.  Paedobaptists  affirm,  and  Baptists  deny. 
The  former  plead  inference  and  the  church  as  author- 
ity, and  the  latter  the  pure  word  of  God. 

Q.  Is  there  a  single  passage  requiring  only  believers 
to  be  baptised  ? 

A.  There  is  nothing  else  in  all  the  scriptures  of  truth. 
The  commission  commands  it,  Mark  xvi,  16.  The  apos- 
tles practised  accordingly,  Acts  viii,  12,37,  etc.  Infants 
are  required  to  be  fed,  and  nursed,  and  brought  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,"  and  the 
Lord  blesses  and  saves  them  through  the  election  of 
grace,  washes  them  in  his  blood,  and  makes  them  of 
his  kingdom  of  Heaven  ;  while  millions  of  the  chris- 
tened intidels  of  mystical  Babylon  will  terribly  perish. 

Q.  How  do  Baptists  prove  their  doctrine  ? 

A.  By  express  declarations  of  Scripture — "He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptised,"  Mark  xvi,  16;  "  If  thou  be- 
lievest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest,"  Acts  viii,  37. 

Q.  Is  it  not  unreasonable  that  inferences  of  fal- 
lible men  should  be  considered  paramount  with  the 
word  of  God,  and  used  to  make  void  the  divine  com- 
mand ? 

A.  It  certainly  is  preposterous  and  presumptuous, 
and  shows  that  men  will  not  only  ' 'reject  the  counsel 
of  God  against  themselves,"  when  infatuated  with  the 
idea  that  they  bear  some  sort  of  relation  to  Abraham, 
and  are  entitled  to  favor  on  that  account,  but  also  disre- 
gard the  declaration  of  Christ — -"By  my  word  shall  ye 
be  judged  in  the  last  day." 

Q.  What  are  tlie  passages  referred  to  prove  be- 
liever's baptism  ? 

A.  All  of  those  that  speak  of  the  subject.  In  every 
ease,  faith,  repentance,  or  receiving  the  word,  being 


78 

pre-requisites  of  a  positive  Law,  necessarily  exclude 
unconscious  babes. 

Q.  Are  these  passages  clear  and  express  ? 

A.  Some  admit  they  are  as  express  as  the  command 
to  "love  the  Lord  with  all  the  heart,"  and  yet  in- 
fer that  they  may  love  and  worship  angels  and 
men  with  equal  devotion,  not  perceiving  in  their  ig- 
norance, interest,  and  prejudice,  that  the  requirements 
of  specific  duty  prohibits  all  other  devices  and  sub- 
stitutes. 

Q.  May  not  inferential  reasoning  often  conceal  a 
sophism  from  the  eyes  of  the  unwary  reader  ? 

A.  This  is  often  the  resort  of  error.  Truth  is  plain, 
express,  and  consistent,  requiring  no  double  dealing. 

Q.  Is  the  assumption  that  the  salvation  of  the  infant 
depends  upon  its  baptism,  a  sufficient  premise  from 
which  to  draw  the  inference  that  the  requisition — "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptised,"  does  not  necessarily 
exclude  all  others  not  specified  ? 

A.  It  is  not.  It  being  a  mere  assumption  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Romish  Church,  Protestants  ought  to 
repudiate  it.  "  The  Bible  "  ought  to  be  the  religion  of 
Protestants,  and  not  the  traditions  of  the  Antichristian 
church  of  Rome. 

Q.  Will  the  assumption  that  faith  is  as  essential  to 
the  salvation  of  the  infant,  as  it  is  to  the  believ- 
or  in  revelation,  serve  the  purpose  of  the  sophisti- 
cal inference  that,  therefore,  children  ought  to  be 
baptised,  inasmuch  as  the  adult  cannot  be  saved  with- 
out faith  ? 

A.  It  does  not.  Infants  are  not  the  subjects  of  the 
command,  nor  adults  as  such,  but  persons  possessing 
the  specific  qualification  of  faith  in  Christ,  the  terms  of 
the  command,  necessarilv  excluding  all  others. 


79 

Q.  On  what  ground,  then,  do  Ptedobaptists  plead 
for  infant  baptism  ? 

A.  "  On  the  ground  of  divine  appointment,"  they 
say,  but  they  always  fail  to  produce  the  M  Law  and 
the  Testimomy."  Let  the  reader  remember  the  first 
question  and  answer  in  the  catechism,  and  he  will 
wonder  how  Abraham  and  Moses  can  settle  the  ques- 
tion of  a  proper  subject  of  a  New  Testament  ordinance. 

Q.  How  do  you  establish  the  divine  appointment  of 
infant  baptism  from  the  Scripture  ? 

A.  It  must  be  established  from  the  Scripture,  inas- 
much as  God  has  never  established  it  in  the  Scripture, 
and  the  question  proposes  that  men  may  establish  a 
divine  appointment  !  The  church  of  Rome  assumes  no 
more. 

Q.  What  appears  to  be  the  purport  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant — ''I  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ?" 

A.  A  national  church  state  was  thus  constituted, 
composed  of  his  descendants,  securing  to  them  Divine 
protection,  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  oracles  of  truth 
with  the  rites  of  that  dispensation. 

Q.  What  was  the  sign  of  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  ? 

A.  There  was  no  internal  sign  of  which  we  read,  but 
there  was  a  certain  sign  appointed,  called  circumcision, 
to  distinguish  the  children  of  this  covenant  from  all 
other  nations,  and  confined  to  persons  of  Jewish  extrac- 
tion— they  only,  have  a  right  to  the  external  rite. 

Q.  What  was  the  spiritual  import  of  this  rite  ? 

A.  While  its  national  import  was  a  mere  badge  of 
distinction    from   all    besides   the   Jews,   its   spiritual 


80 

import  denoted  typically  a  change  of  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  made  without  hands,  and  experienced  by  all 
believers,  without  distinction  of  nations,  dispensations, 
or  signs  imposed  by  human  hands,  Jer.  iv,  4;  Col.  ii  1 1 . 

Q.  Is  circumcision  a  privilege  ? 

A.  Moses'  wife  thought  not,  what  the  internal  cere- 
mony was,  deponent  saith  not,  but  as  a  token  of  God's 
care  and  kindness  to  the  Jewish  nation,  it  was  appre- 
ciated even  by  the  "generation  of  vipers"  who  cru- 
cified the  Lord  of  glory. 

Q.  Were  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  by  God's  ap- 
pointment, constituted  members  of  his  visible  Jewish 
church,  under  the  former  dispensation  ? 

A.  They  were  not,  as  such  ;  but  the  natural  seed  ot 
the  Jews  were.  To  them,  were  to  pertain  the  covenants, 
the  promises,  and  the  oracles — they  constituted  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord,  the  church  in  the  wilderness ; 
and  the  nation  or  tribes  of  Israel,  in  Canaan,  were  ty- 
pical of  the  believing  kingdom  or  churches  of  the  Lord 
Jesus — the  only  proper  subjects  of  christian  baptism. 
Gentiles  cannot  be  Jews  in  the  above  sense,  nor  be- 
lieving parents,  Abrahams,  nor  circumcision  trans- 
muted into  baptism  by  an  inference,  Gen.  xvii,  7. 

Q.  Is  there  any  propriety  in  looking  into  the  Old 
Testament,  for  proof  in  support  of  infant  baptism  ?" 

A.  There  is  great  propriety  in  searching  the  Scrip- 
tures that  we  may  know  the  will  of  God  in  all  things, 
but  none,  in  looking  for  the  rite  where  it  never  existed, 
and  where  it  cannot  be  found  if  the  first  answer  be 
true,  that  it  was  instituted  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
the  only  Lawgiver  in  Zion." 

Q.  If  the  children  of  a  believer  were  constituted  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church  at  first,  what  is  the  necessary 
result  from  this  facf> 


81 

A.  As  the  natural  descendants  of  the  believer 
Abraham  were  constituted  a  visible  typical  church  at 
first,  the  result  is  that  his  spiritual  children  by  faith  in 
God,  and  union  with  the  notable  seed  Christ,  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  baptism  and  members  of  the 
christian  churches.  Romans  iv,  12  ;  Gal.  iii,  14, 
16,  26. 

Q.  Does  not  the  exclusion  of  the  children  of  be- 
lievers from  baptism  involve  the  introduction  of  a  prin- 
ciple which  is  at  war  with  a  revealed  fact  ? 

A.  It  does  not.  Baptism  being  the  professing  act  of 
the  believer  in  Christ,  according  to  His  institution, 
can  have  no  application  to  Jewish  children  ;  nor  was 
the  rite  of  circumcision  ever  given  up  by  the  Jews  for 
baptism  ;  nor  yet  was  there  ever  an\  provision  made 
by  Christ  for  Gentiles  to  be  circumcised  and  connected 
with  the  Jewish  church. 

Q.  Is  there  any  intimation  in  the  New  Testament 
that  God  is  more  regardless  of  the  children  of  His 
people  now,  than  he  was  under  the  former  dispen- 
sation ? 

A.  There  is  none  ;  and  the  very  supposition  that  He 
regards  them  with  equal  favor  because  they  are  the 
fleshly  children  of  believers,  involves  a  most  palpable 
and  gross  theological  absurdity.  It  contradicts  the 
doctrines  of  total  depravity  and  the  election  of  grace, 
as  well  as  sets  aside  the  covenant  of  mercy,  and  is  op- 
posed to  the  entire  Scripture  revealing  the  Divine 
Sovereignty.  Besides  leading  parents  into  the  error 
that  piety  flows  through  the  veins,  or  is  communicated 
in  baptism,  it  leads  them  to  trust  in  the  sprinkling  per- 
formance of  unholy  hands  for  the  salvation  of  their 
dying  babes,  instead  of  the  cleansing  blood  of  an  Al- 
mighty Saviour,  who  has  said  "  of  such  is  the  king- 


82 

dom  of  heaven,"  as  he  pronounced  upon  them  his 
saving  blessing. 

Q.  Was  the  church  constituted  in  the  wilderness  by- 
Moses,  when  God  gave  him  the  law.  the  same  with 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  organized  in  Jerusalem  under 
the  direction  of  the  Messiah,  as  the  model  church  of 
all  true  churches  of  Christ  ? 

A.  It  was  not.  That  church  Avas  dispensed  with  its 
priests,  sacrifices,  tabernacle,  ark,  etc.,  to  the  Jews 
exclusively  ;  but  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  the  anti- 
typical  church,  with  other  than  a  worldly  sanctuary 
and  carnal  membership,  dispensed  with  its  ordinances, 
baptism  and  the  supper,  and  the  offices,  elders  and 
deacons,  to  believers  alone  ;  and  hence  all  the  letters 
addressed  by  the  Apostles  to  the  New  Testament 
churches,  call  them  believers,  saints,  etc.,  capable  of 
performing  divine  commands.  Acts  ii,  42  ;  Rom.  i, 
7  ;  Gal.  v,  1  ;  Eph.  i,  1  ;  Phil,  i,  1  ;  Col.  i,  2;  Thes. 
i,  1. 

Q.  What  conclusion  follows  the  fact  that  the  carnal 
children  of  Abraham  composed  the  Jewish  church 
state,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  typical  char- 
acter of  that  church  ? 

A.  It  is  that  the  children  of  God  now  constitute  the 
Saviour's  kingdom.  "  They  which  are  of  faith,  the 
same  are  the  children  of  Abraham,"  "so  then  they 
which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham," 
and  are  proper  subjects  of  the  christian  ordinance. 
The  believing  Jews  changed  from  ignorant,  carnal  mi- 
nors into  spiritual  children  of  Abraham,  through  the 
same  grace  that  saves  the  Gentiles,  while  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews  are  cast  out  with  the  bond-woman,  with  her 
legal  circumcised  brood,  unworthy  of  dwelling  with 
the  children  of   promise  in  the  Jerusalem  which  is 


83 

above.  And  unless  the  Baptists  save  them,  the  Psedo- 
baptists  will  run  headlong  after  them,  the  church  of 
Rome  leading  the  way.     Gal.  iii,  22,  iv,  23 — 31. 

Q.  Is  there  any  resemblance  between  circumcision 
and  baptism  ? 

A.  There  is  not.  One  is  performed  with  the  knife, 
the  other,  by  laying  the  body  in  the  water  and  raising 
it  up  in  likeness  of  a  burial  and  resurrection.  They 
were  both  appointed,  as  well  as  sacrificing,  building 
altars,  and  a  hundred  other  things  comprised  in  the 
system  of  Jewish  worship,  by  God,  for  different  pur- 
poses. One  was  a  seal  to  Abraham  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  his  faith,  and  a  type  of  the  regeneration  of 
spiritual  Israel  under  the  gospel ;  but  it  was  a  seal  to 
no  others  than  Abraham,  he  being  the  eminent  model 
of  a  true  believer,  as  well  as  the  father  of  a  fleshly 
seed.  Baptism  and  the  communion  were  appointed 
for  the  observance  of  believers  in  the  gospel.  Acts  ii, 
41,  42.  Circumcision  was  to  be  inflicted  because  the 
subject  was  a  child  of  Jewish  parents,  not  to  make 
them  such  as  some  will  have  it.  Baptism  "is  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,  by  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."   1  Pet.  iii,  21. 

Q.  What  argument  can  be  adduced  for  the  support 
of  infant  baptism  ? 

A.  The  New  Testament  furnishes  none.  The  Jew- 
ish church  having  forsaken  God,  and  crucified  the 
Redeemer,  were  not  accounted  the  spiritual  seed,  or 
the  children  of  the  new  covenant,  except  those  who 
should  believe  in  Christ.  To  the  Jews  the  Apostles 
preached  repentance  as  the  pre-requisite  of  baptism, 
and  the  state  of  mind  for  receiving  pardon  and  the 
consolations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  restricting  the  promise 
to  those  whom  the  Lord  God  should  call.     Acts  ii,  38, 


84 

39.  The  children  of  believing  parents  are  said  to  be 
holy,  and  unbelieving  husbands  sanctified  by  the  di- 
vinely appointed  connubial  and  parental  relations,  but 
if  one  is  eligible  to  the  ordinance  on  this  account,  the 
other  is  equally  so.  Christ  blesses  and  saves  children, 
because  they  were  chosen  in  Him,  by  his  own  blood, 
independent  of  human  devices. 

Q.  Is  it  anywhere  said  that  the  Apostles  baptised 
children  ? 

A.  It  is  not.  And  as  they  were  never  commanded 
to  do  it,  we  may  very  reasonably  suppose  that  they 
had  the  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  and  would  not 
utter  the  Divine  name  over  a  nullity.  It  is  not.  In 
an  honest  moment,  or  incautiously,  the  truth  will  find 
expression.  But  wo  unto  the  man  who  will  attempt  to 
make  Scripture,  of  inference,  or  exalt  conjecture  or 
tradition  above  the  Divine  word.     Rev.  xxii,  19. 

Q.  What  of  the  households  ? 

A.  The  jailor  and  all  his  house  were  addressed  by 
Paul,  they  were  all  baptised,  and  he  rejoiced,  believ- 
ing in  God,  with  all  his  house.  They  all  heard,  be- 
lieved, rejoiced,  were  baptised  with  him.  Infants 
could  not  do  these  things  with  him.  Lydia's  house- 
hold had  been  converted  a  few  days  before,  and  when 
the  Apostle  was  let  out  of  prison,  he,  of  course,  would 
call  and  see  the  household  of  Lydia,  they  being  the 
only  converts  besides  the  jailor's  family  in  the  city  of 
Philippi,  "  and  when  he  had  seen  the  brethren,  he  com- 
forted them."  Acts  xvi,  33,  40.  The  household  of 
Stephanas,  and  many  other  Corinthians,  hearing,  be- 
lieved, and  were  baptised,  ministered  to  the  Apostles. 
1  Cor.  i,  14,  xvi,  15. 

Q.  Do  the  Apostles  in  their  discussion  of  circum- 
cision, in  Acts  xv.  allude  to  the  identity  of  the  Jewish 


85 

and  christian  churches,  the  membership  of  infants,  or 
the  substitution  of  baptism  for  circumcision  ? 

A.  They  do  not ;  and  it  is  unaccountable  on  the 
supposition  that  such  views  prevailed  among  primitive 
christians,  especially  as  the  Jewish  brethren  gave  all 
the  trouble  upon  this  subject  to  believing  Gentiles  and 
the  mother  church. 

Q.  Since  the  Jews  to  whom  the  gospel  was  first 
preached,  had  always  been  accustomed  to  have  their 
children  circumcised,  and  recognized  as  belonging  to 
the  Jewish  church  of  God,  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  they  would  have  submitted  to  the  exclusion  of 
their  children  under  the  gospel,  without  complaining  ? 

A.  As  the  Jewish  parents  were  themselves  prohibi- 
ted from  entering  the  kingdom  of  Christ  by  virtue  of 
their  relationship  in  the  Jewish  church,  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  see  why  they  did  not  complain  about  their 
children.  Their  relation  to  Abraham,  the  church  of 
God,  their  circumcision,  their  tithe-paying  of  all  they 
possessed  would  not  avail  them  as  a  title  to  member- 
ship in  the  church  of  Christ.  Their  children  not  hav- 
ing been  members  of  the  christian  church  of  God,  of 
course,  were  never  excluded  from  it.      Matt,  iii,  7,  9. 

Q.  Since  children  cannot  understand  the  meaning 
of  baptism,  of  what  possible  advantage  can  it  be  ? 

A.  Such  a  question  argues  ignorance  and  presump- 
tion,  if  it  were  appointed  of  God.  But  as  it  never 
Was  appointed,  and  as  it  is  not  said  that  the  Apostles 
baptised  children,  it  may  be  very  proper,  etc. 

Q.  As  the  Jews  not  only  circumcised  their  children, 
but  led  them  to  the  Passover,  which  they  could  not 
understand,  why  do  not  Peedobaptists  take  their  chil- 
dren to  the  Lord's  supper,  it  being  the  memorial  of 
Christ's  death  ? 


86 

A.  The  fathers  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  not' 
only  gave  them  the  one,  but  the  other  with  milk,  and 
and  honey,  and  spittle.  Nor  is  it  either  ignorance  or 
presumption  to  say  that  all  these  practices  are  alike 
destitute  of  divine  authority. 

Q.  What  conclusion  are  we  to  draw  from  the  varie- 
ty of  reasons  for  the  baptism  of  infants  ?  Among 
which  the  following  are  given  in  the  history  of  this 
controversy.  1,  Cyprian,  the  inventor,  because  Elisha 
raised  to  life  the  Shumanite  child,  thereby  showing 
that  the  children  are  equal  to  men.  2,  Augustine — be- 
cause it  removes  original  sin.  3,  Dr.  Taylor — because 
the  command  may  have  been  among  the  parchments 
at  Troas.  4,  Dr.  Edwards — because  the  beloved  of 
Solomon  in  the  song,  had  a  naval  as  round  as  a  gob- 
let. 5,  Dr.  Wilson — because  children  believe  even  be- 
fore they  are  born,  John  leaped  at  the   annunciation. 

6,  Calvin — the  children  of  the  Jews  were  circumcised. 

7,  Dr.  Wardlaw — on  the  faith  of  their  parents.  8,  Dr. 
Newman- — on  the  faith  of  their  sponsors.  9,  Dr.  Nevin 
— because  Divine  life  flows  through  the  church  organ- 
ism. 10,  Dr.  Bushnel — because  salvation  comes  to  the 
children  through  the  organism  of  a  pious  family.  1 1, 
Belarmine — because  it  is  apostolic  tradition.  12,  Dr. 
Bird — the  Saviour  blessed  them.  13,  Dr.  Yeager — 
the  Scriptures  do  not  forbid  it.  14,  Dr.  Mason — it  in- 
creases the  number,  influence,  and  resources  of  the 
church.  •  15,  Neander — it  is  in  accordance  with  the 
spirit  of  Christianity.  16,  Because  it  regenerates  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  See  Catholic  and  Episcopal  prayer 
books  and  Methodist  Discipline. 

A.  We  can  draw  no  other  conclusion  than  that  when 
men  leave  the  sure  word  of  God,  they  wander  into 
labyrinths  of  error,  and  their  conflicting    opinions  pre- 


87 

sent  a  scene  of  Babylonian  confusion,  and  so  destructive 
of  each  other,  that  Kilkenny  itself,  never  furnished  a  pa- 
rallel. Circumcision  was  God's  command,  and  binds  to 
itself  its  own  subjects,  Jewish  children,  and  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  act  alone  which  it  specifies,  the  cutting 
off  the  foreskin  ;  but  he  who  is  so  ignorant  or  presump- 
tuous as  to  suppose  that  an  inference  recently  concocted 
in  a  studio,  that  "as  children  now  are  as  capable"  of 
baptism,  etc.,  is  a  command  of  God,  surely  needs  the 
prayers  of  the  pious  in  his  behalf,  that  the  Lord  would 
in  mercy  save  him  from  worshiping  the  saints. 

Q.  What  is  the  duty  of  Parents  to  their  children  ? 

A.  They  should  regard  their  children  as  belonging 
unto  the  Lord,  and  as  committed  to  their  care  for  a 
season,  that  they  may  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord;  and  consequently  they 
should  pray  with  them,  and  for  them,  and  carefully 
instruct  them  betimes  in  the  knowledge  of  those  things 
which  are  connected  with  their  everlasting  peace. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    ORDINANCE    OF   BAPTISM. 

Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism ? 

A.  The  manner  of  of  performing  the  rite. 

Q.  Is  there  a  propriety  in  using  the  phrase,  the  mode 
of  baptism  ? 

A.  There  would  be  manifestly  if  this  wotA  in  dis- 


88 

pute.  The  German  Baptists  baptise  the  subject  for- 
ward, the  English,  backward  ;  but  they  both  bury  the 
subject  with  Christ  in  Baptism. 

Q.  What  are  the  conflicting  views  with  regard  to 
baptism  ? 

A.  They  may  be  reduced  to  three,  or  even  two, 
One  view  is  that  baptism  is  the  immersion  of  the  sub- 
ject in  water  with  the  proper  formula ;  The  other  view 
is,  that  water  may  be  sprinkled  on  the  subject. 

Q.  Does  the  word  baptise,  determine  that  to  immerse 
fulfils  its  import  ? 

A.  It  does.  All  classic  usage  proves  it,  and  all 
classic  and  New  Testament  usage  proves  that  the  ap- 
propriate Greek  term  for  the  action  of  sprinkling  is 
rantiso,  and  where  the  term  is  translated  it  is  rendered 
dip,  or  wash,  as  the  effect  of  the  action,  Rev.  xix,  13. 

Q.  Why  should  classic  usage  determine  it  ? 

A.  Because  the  New  Testament  was  written  in 
Greek,  and  the  Greeks  have  practised  accordingly  ever 
since.  If  the  classic  Greeks  were  too  old  to  under- 
stand the  term,  the  modern  Greeks,  may  not  be  too 
young. 

Q.  Do  not  Lexicographers  generally  give  "wash" 
as  a  definition  ? 

A.  They  do ;  as  several  removes  from  the  primary 
and  predominant  meaning  of  the  word,  and,  as  its  ef- 
fect, i.  e.,   "to  wash"  by  dipping, 

Q.  Is  "to  wash"  the  only  scriptural  meaning? 

A.  Not  so  ;  the  word  represents  the  burial  and  re- 
surrection of  Christ ;  and  therefore,  when  we  die  to 
the  world  and  sin  by  faith  in  Christ,  we  are  washed  in 
His  blood,  and  should  be  buried  "  in  baptism"  as  the 
first  Christians  were,  Acts  xxii,  16;  Rom.  vi,  4;  Col. 
ii,  12      Water  and  wind  are  both  figures  of  the  Holy 


89 

Spirit's  operations,  as  well  as  fire  and  the  sword,  inde- 
pendent of  baptismal  water,  John  iii,  5,  and  i,  7,  have 
no  reference  to  baptism. 

Q.  In  what  manner  should  water  be  used  in  the  or- 
dinance ? 

A.  The  administrator,  with  the  candidate  should 
walk  down  into  it  as  Philip  and  the  Eunich  did,  and 
there  baptise  him,  or  bury  him,  or  wash  him,  emble- 
matically, as  he  had  professed  to  be  washed  in  the 
blood  of  Christ  and  dead  to  sin,  and  then  let  him  go 
on  his  way  rejoicing,  he  having  answered  a  good  con- 
science toward  God,  and  imitated  the  example  of  Christ 
in  this  riteous  institution  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
subject  should  thus  be  baptised. 

Q.  Does  the  word  baptise  signify  nothing  else  than 
immerse  ? 

A.  Dr.  Wall  says  no  other  practice  was  known  for 
thirteen  hundred  years,  except  in  extreme  sickness 
and  only  afterwards  until  the  reformation  in  the  wes- 
tern church  (of  Rome);  and  Dr.  George  Campbell, 
says,  this  is  its  only  meaning ;  and  Calvin  says  such 
was  the  practice  at  first,  but  "the  Church  has  granted 
to  herself  to  change  the  form  somewhat,  retaining  the 
substance,"  Com.  Acts  viii,  38.  This  changing  of  the 
ordinance  or  the  substitution  of  rantism  for  baptism  is 
freely  acknowledged  by  Catholic  writers,  who,  with 
Calvin,  say  the  church  has  a  right  to  change  the  ordi- 
nance. The  Holy  Spirit  not  only  sanctioned  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Saviour  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  but  over- 
whelmed the  Apostles  with  his  heavenly  influence,  fill- 
ing the  house  where  they  were  sitting  and  them  too, 
and  calls  it  a  baptism  ?  Acts  ii,  2,  4.  The  Israelites 
were  buried  with  Moses  by  the  walls  of  water  on  each 
eide,  and  the  cloud  over  their  heads  concealing  them 


90 

from  their  enemies,  and  they  walked  through,  dry 
shod,  Ei.  xiv,  29  ;  1  Cor.  x,  2.  A  nation  in  the  tomb 
pledging  tVemselves  to  Moses,  to  follow  him  as  their 
leader,  so  christians  do  who  are  buried  with  Christ  by 
baptism,  to  follow  him. 

Q.  As  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  was  an  overwhelm- 
ing, does  immersion  only  represent  it  as  nearly  as  the 
nature  of  the  case  will  admit? 

A.  It  does  represent  it;  sprinkling  can  no  more  re- 
present that  sublime  display  of  spiritual  influence,  than 
the  spray  of  a  jet  can  equal  the  Falls  of  Niagara  in 
volume  and  power.  Dr.  Dodridge  says  that  when  the 
Saviour  calls  his  sufferings  a  baptism,  he  means  to  be 
plunged  into  sufferings,  or  overwhelmed  by  them. 
Will  men  degrade  His  sufferings  by  corrupting  His 
holy  ordinance.  The  circumstances  of  primitive  bap- 
tisms as  far  as  mentioned,  are  all  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion, and  cannot  be  otherwise  construed  without 
perversion.  The  Apostle  says,  "we  are  buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism  into  death"  i.  e.,  death  unto  sin, 
which  we  experience  by  faith,  and  of  which  baptism  is 
emblematical  ;  and  this  is  what  we  profess  before  bap- 
tism hoping  and  believing  we  shall  rise  at  the  last  day 
in  the  entire  likeness  of  our  Saviour,  whose  burial  and 
resurrection  we  have  imitated  in  our  baptism.  The 
spiritual  blessing  and  its  emblem  are  both  in  the  pas- 
sage, Rom.  vi,  3,  4. 

Q.  What  should  be  the  object  of  our  great  concern, 
with  regard  to  baptism  ? 

A.  It  is  to  know  the  will  of  God  and  to  do  it :  "  If 
ye  love  me  keep  my  commandments  ;"  "If  ye  do  what- 
soever I  command  you,  then  are  ye  my  disciples  ;"  "If 
any  man  be  in  Christ  he  is  a  new  creature — old  things 
*re  passed  away  and  all  things  have  become  new." 


ei 

H  In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any- 
thing nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature,"  hence, 
the  old  circumcision  has  no  application  to  Gospel  times, 
but  the  new  circumcision  of  Christ  gives  a  right  to 
baptism,  the  Lords  supper,  and  all  the  privileges  of  the 
new  covenant;  the  apostle  therefore  says  to  believers, 
"In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumci- 
sion made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ  ; 
BURIED  with  Him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
risen  with  Him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God  who  hath  raised  Him  from  the  dead,"  Col.  ii,  12, 
and  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  a  reason  for 
baptism,  not  for  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  subject, 
Acts  x,  4,  7.  Though  Protestants  will  renounce  the 
Bible  upon  this  subject,  let  them  not  turn  away  from 
the  exposition  of  the  authors  of  their  confession  of 
faith,  who  also  ratified  Rouse's  version  of  the  Psalms. 
Assembly  of  Westminster  Divines.  If  we  have 
been  planted  together,  etc.,  Rom.  vi,  4,  "By  this  ele- 
gant similitude  tne  apostle  represents  to  us,  that,  as  a 
plant  that  is  set  in  the  earth,  lieth  as  dead  and  immov- 
able for  a  time,  but  after  springs  up  and  flourishes,  so 
Christ's  body  lay  dead  for  a  while  in  the  grave,  but 
sprung  up  and  flourished  in  his  resurrection,  and  we, 
also,  when  we  are  baptised,  are  buried,  as  it  were,  in 
the  wafer,  for  a  time  but  after  are  raised  up  to  new- 
ness of  life,"  Annotations  in  this  place 


92 
SYLLABUS  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

IN    LOGICAL    FORM. 

Introductory  Remarks. — 1.  Professors  of  religion, 
in  general,  consider  baptism  as  a  duly  ;  and  that  it 
ought  to  be  attended  to  by  all  proper  subjects. 

2.  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution,  and  therefore  we 
must  have  some  plain  precept  or  example  to  direct  us, 
both  with  respect  to  the  persons  who  are  to  be  baptised 
and  the  ordinance  to  be  administered. 

3.  If  we  proceed  in  ti  is  ordinance,  or  any  other, 
without  authority  from  Scripture,  God  will  reject  our 
services  with,  "Who  Lath  required  this  at  your 
hands?"  "In  vain  do  ye  worship  me,  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men." 

4.  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  peculiar  to  the  Gospel 
dispensation  ;  and  therefore  the  rule  of  our  duty  must 
be  sought  in  the  New  Testament,  and  not  in  the  Old,. 

5.  The  law  which  enjoins  baptism  may  be  found  in 
Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20.  It  enjoins  a  duty  durable  as  the 
unchanging  dispensation  to  which  it  belongs — to  charge 
the  command  with  obscurity,  is  a  daring  impeachment 
of  Divine  Wisdom  and  Love — to  suppose  the  Apostles 
did  not  understand  it,  is  highly  absurd  ;  they  certain- 
ly must  understand  it  right,  and  their  practice  must 
be  the  best  comment  upon  it. 

6.  If,  by  searching  sacred  history,  we  can  learn, 
that  the  Apostles  attended  to  baptism,  we  are  bound 
to  follow  their  example  ;  nor  can  any  argument,  de- 
rived from  education,  custom,  fashion,  popularity,  sup- 
posed indelicacy,  non-essentiality,  etc.,  justify  those 
who  live  in  the  known  neglect  of  it  ;  for  what  are  all 
these,  when  opposed  to  divine  law,  to  primitive  uni- 
versal practice  ? 


93 

The  following  observations,  with  the  remarks  under 
each,  are  submitted  to  the  pious  reader's  candid  con- 
sideration : 

First. — We  have  no  proof,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  the  Apostles  ever  rantised  or  sprinkled. 

Argument  1.  If  the  Apostles  sprinkled,  it  is  reason- 
able that  they  would  have  told  us  so,  but  no  inti- 
mation of  this  can  be  collected  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Argument  2.  The  word  baptise  does  not  signify  to 
sprinkle,  but  to  immer.se  ;  this  is  granted  by  all  the 
learned.  The  Apostles  well  knew  that  this  was  the 
import,  of  the  word,  and  fidelity  to  their  Master's  com- 
mand would  induce  them  to  dip,  and  not  sprinkle. 

Argument  3.  If  a  few  drops  of  water,  falling  from 
the  hands  of  a  priest,  were  sufficient  for  this  ordinance, 
how  absurd  and  unaccountable  the  conduct  of  the 
Apostles  ;  they  chose  places  where  there  was  much 
water  ;  and  because  there  was  much  water,  they  went 
down  into  the  rivers  to  baptise  ;  and  shall  we  dare  to 
charge  the  Apostles  wuli  folly,  to  keep  up  the  credit  of 
sprinkling  ? 

Argument  4.  The  word  baptism  is  sometimes  used 
in  Scripture  in  an  allusive  or  figurative  sense  :  Christ's 
sufferings  are  called  a  baptism — the  effusions  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  are  called  a  baptism — and  the  Apostle  says 
"we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism."  Can  v.e  sup- 
pose that  Christ  was  sprinkled  with  sufferings — that 
the  Apostles  were  sprinkled  with  the  Holy  Ghost — 
that  a  body  is  buried  when  a  few  particles  of  dust  are 
sprinkled  ?  .  Absurd  supposition  !  But  if  dipping  or 
covering  with  water,  be  proper  baptism,  then  the  pas- 
sages referred  to  are  clear,  and  the  allusions  oroper, 
because  the  resemblance  is  striking:. 


94 

Inferences.-—  1.  As  sprinkling  is  not  baptism,  those 
who  have  been  only  sprinkled,  have  not  been  baptised 
at  all. 

2.  That  it  betokens  great  ignorance  to  deny  that 
immersion  is  baptism,  when  such  is  the  meaning  of 
the  original  word,  and  it  is  constantly  used  in  that 
sense. 

3.  That  those  persons  who  have  been  sprinkled, 
ought  to  submit  to  immersion  ;  for  the  Scriptures  tell 
us  that  there  is  "  one  baptism,"  and  no  more. 

4.  That  a  person  must  be  greatly  unacquainted 
with  the  plain,  literal,  scriptural  account  of  baptism, 
or  extremely  prejudiced,  not  to  say  perverse,  to  af- 
firm that  the  Bible  says  nothing  about  immersion,  or 
burying  in  water  as  baptising,  for  it  speaks  of  this  alone. 

Second. — We  have  no  Scriptural  authority  to  bap- 
tise infants. 

Argument  1.  If  the  Apostles  baptised  infants,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  they  would  have  told  us  so ;  but 
we  have  not  the  least  intimation  of  their  baptising  one 
infant  in  all  their  travels  ;  they  speak  of  baptising  men 
and  women,  but  never  infants. 

Argument  2.  The  things  required  of  candidates  by 
the  Apostles  necessarily  exclude  infants  ;  they  require 
Instruction,  Repentance,  Confession,  Reformation,  and 
Faith  ;  infants  are  incapable  of  these,  therefore  not 
the  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  It  is  granted  that  the 
Aposlt's  baptised  several  households,  but  there  are 
many  households  without  infants  ;  and  the  Bible  says 
nothing  about  infants  in  these  ;  what  is  said  of  these 
households  cannot,  with  any  truth  be  said  of  infants — 
they  believed,  rejoiced,  and  ministered :  are  infanU 
capable  of  these  ? 

It  is  a  fact,  that  infants  or  children  were  brought  to 


96 

Jesus,  and  that  lie  blessed  them  ;  but  not  one  word  is 
said  about  his  baptising  them  ;  and  it  is  certain  that 
Christ  did  not  baptise  them  ;  for  he  never  baptised 
any,  either  young  or  old.  We  sometimes  hear  of  bap- 
tism succeeding  circumcision  ;  and  as  infants  were  cir- 
cumcised, so  they  ought  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  ; 
but  it  is  sufficient  to  say  this  strange  succession  is  no 
where  taught  in  Scripture  ;  and  therefore  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Inference. — As  infant  sprinkling  is  a  human  inven- 
tion, it  is  in  vain  to  expect  the  smiles  of  God  upon  it, 
and,  therefore,  the  popular  opinion  must  be  erroneous 
and  injurious,  which  states  that  infants,  when  sprinkled, 
are  made  "  members  of  Christ,  children  of  God,  and 
inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  A  supposition 
absurd  in  the  extreme,  contrary  to  Scripture,  falsified 
by  universal  observation,  and  dangerous  in  proportion 
to  the  credit  it  gains  in  the  religious  world  :  there  be- 
ing reason  to  fear  that  many,  when  they  come  to  the 
years  of  maturity,  trusting  to  this  sprinkling  work,  go 
securely  to  ruin. 

Third. — There  is  also  the  proof  that  we  can  reason- 
able desire,  that  the  Apostles  baptised,  i,  e.,  im- 
mersed. 

Argument  1.  The  Apostles  certainly  did  baptise. 
The  preceding  observations  clearly  prove  that  they  did 
not  sprinkle,  we  therefore  infer  that  dipping  was  the 
ordinance. 

Argument  2.  The  radical,  primary  sense  of  the  word 
baptise,  required  them  to  dip  or  plunge.  Indeed,  it  is 
so  understood  by  all  learned  men  :  and  so  the  Greeks 
practise. 

Argument  3.  The  places  they  chose,  and  their  going 
down  into  these  places,  make  it  manifest  that  they  im- 


96 

mersed.  "  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there."  Bowls 
are  never  mentioned. 

Fourth. — It  is  undoubtedly  evident  that  many  be- 
lievers were  baptised  by  the  Apostles. 

Among  many  other  examples,  we  find  Lydia,  Ste- 
phanas, the  Jailor,  the  Eunuch ;  and  in  Acts  2,  we 
read  of  three  thousand,  therefore,  as  we  have  three 
thousand  and  four  plain  examples  in  favor  of  believers, 
baptism,  and  not  one  solitary  example  of  infant  sprink- 
ling, in  all  the  travels  and  writings  of  the  Apostles, 
let  conscience  decide  what  is  the  line  of  duty.  The 
law  is:  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised  shall  be 
saved." 

Last. — We  give  an  epitome  of  our  reasons  for  prac- 
tising believer's  baptism. 

We  practise  immersion,  not  because  we  wish  to  dif- 
fer from  our  brethren  of  other  denominations,  nor  be- 
cause we  expect  that  water  will  wash  away  our  sins,  or 
procure  any  part  of  our  salvation,  but  we  administer 
the  ordinance,  because  : 

1.  We  are  commanded  to  do  so.  It  would  therefore 
be  presumptuous  to  slight  the  command  of  our  Lord, 
upon  the  ground  of  non-essentiality,  or  upon  any 
other  pretence  whatever.  "It  is  better  to  obey  than 
to  sacrifice. " 

2.  We  cannot  in  conscience  trifle  with  baptism,  be- 
cause, that,  in  effect,  charges  Christ  with  being  a  trifler. 

3.  Because  we  wish,  on  earth,  to  walk  in  the  imita- 
ble  steps  of  that  Jesus  with  whom  we  hope  to  live  in 
heaven  forever.  "Leaving  us  an  example,  that  we 
should  follow  his  steps." 


. 


